JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since, the incident in sequel whereto articles of charges were formulated against petitioners Beli Ram Sharma and Tara Devi, is common, to both the delinquents, hence, both the aforementioned writ petitions are enjoined to be disposed of, by a common verdict. 2. Through CWP No. 5445 of 2014, petitioner Beli Ram Sharma prays for affording to him, the hereinafter extracted reliefs:- "(i) Ordering penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of Rs. 10300-34800-3800 GP by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect without adversely affecting the pension of the petitioner may be quashed and set aside; (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, thereby directing the respondent High Court to grant full pay and allowances admissible to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. (iii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, thereby directing the respondent High Court to post the petitioner his parent department, i. e. respondent High Court. (iv) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting the rejection order dated 23. 07. 2013 on the review petition contained in Annexure P-19. (v) Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, thereby directing the respondent High Court to release the incremental benefits due and admissible to the petitioner with consequential benefits with effect from the date of suspension dated 1. 10. 2011 Annexure P12. 3. Through CWP No. 7955 of 2014, petitioner Tara Devi prays for affording to her, the hereinafter extracted reliefs:- "(i) Ordering penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of Rs. 4900- 10680/- 1300 GP by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect without adversely affecting the pension of the petitioner may be quashed and set aside; (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, thereby directing the respondent High Court to grant full pay and allowances admissible to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. (iii) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting the rejection order dated 23. 07. 2013 on the review petition contained in Annexure P-15. (iii) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting the rejection order dated 23. 07. 2013 on the review petition contained in Annexure P-15. (iv) Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, thereby directing the respondent High Court to release the incremental benefits due and admissible to the petitioner with consequential benefits with effect from the date of suspension dated 1. 10. 2011. 4. In pursuance to a complaint received against the petitioners, a preliminary inquiry was held against them, in course whereof, on discernment of the material appended therewith, it was concluded that the writ petitioners were enjoined to be subjected to a regular inquiry. ,whereafter, the following Article of Charges were framed against petitioner Tara Devi:- "ARCTICLE-I That on 13. 09. 2011 Smt. Tara Devi, Peon after marking her present in the attendance register in Rules & Inspection Branch went to the gate of the High Court. While she was standing near the gate at about 10. 30/11 A. M. , she saw a lady namely Smt. Kashmiri Devi (Complainant) accompanied with her brother Sh. Sanjay Kumar entering the High Court gage. Said Smt. Tara Devi immediately interrupted Smt. Kashmiri Devi and her brother and enquired about the purpose of their visit. Upon this, Smt. Kashmiri Devi disclosed about the case of her husband, who was lodged in the jail. Said Smt. Tara Devi assured them that the problem would be solved through Beli Ram Sharma, Judgment Writer, who according to Smt. Tara Devi, is most helpful of poor people. Said Smt. Tara Devi took Smt. Kashmiri Devi and her brother to the Canteen and asked them to sit there till lunch hours. During lunch ours Smt. Tara Devi alongwith Sh. Beli Ram Sharma, Judgement Writer (under suspension appeared in the canteen and had discussions with them. Sh. Beli Ram Sharma assured Smt. Kashmiri Devi and her brother that their work would be done and a fees of minimum of Rs. 7000/- would be charged. Smt. Kashmiri Devi agreed to the proposal and handed over Rs. 2000/- to Shri Beli Ram Sharma in the presence of said Smt. Tara Devi, who told them that he (Beli Ram) would meet them in the evening, as he was busy and kept them sitting with Smt. Tara Devi till evening. 7000/- would be charged. Smt. Kashmiri Devi agreed to the proposal and handed over Rs. 2000/- to Shri Beli Ram Sharma in the presence of said Smt. Tara Devi, who told them that he (Beli Ram) would meet them in the evening, as he was busy and kept them sitting with Smt. Tara Devi till evening. In the evening Shri Beli Ram met them again and assured that their work would be done. Sh. Beli Ram Sharma asked them to pay the remaining amount by next Friday. Said Smt. Tara Devi, Peon (under suspension) neglected her duties and remained with Smt. Kashmiri Devi and her brother till evening. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi committed an act of grave mis conduct, un-becoming of a public servant, thereby rendering herself liable for disciplinary action. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi has committed an act of grave misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the CCS (conduct) Rules 1964. ARTICLE-II That on 16. 09. 2011, Shri Puppinder Kumar, the brother of the complainant came to Hon''ble High Court with Smt. Kashmiri Devi (complainant) to enquire about the status of the case. Smt. Tara Devi alongwith Beli Ram Sharma met Sh. Puppinder Kumar and Smt. Kashmiri Devi (complainant) in the morning of 16. 09. 2011 when Sh. Beli Ram Sharma again assured them that their problem would be solved and further told that he was busy at that time. At about 12. 30 p. m. when said Sh. Puppinder Kumar etc. failed to find any clue of their case, he again contacted Smt. Tara Devi, Peon on phone and asked her to return her documents and Rs. 2000/-. Upon this Smt. Tara Devi, Peon started threatening Sh. Puppinder Kumar. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi committed an act of grave mis-conduct which amount to unbecoming of a public servant and thereby rendered herself liable for disciplinary action. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi has committed an act of misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III That as per call-details obtained from the mobile companies, it has been revealed that Smt. Tara Devi had made telephonic conversation with the complainant (Smt. Kashmiri Devi), her brother (Puppinder Kumar) on 13. 09. 2011. Said Smt. Tara Devi and Shri Beli Ram Sharma had also made frequent telephonic conversation with each other and also Sh. ARTICLE-III That as per call-details obtained from the mobile companies, it has been revealed that Smt. Tara Devi had made telephonic conversation with the complainant (Smt. Kashmiri Devi), her brother (Puppinder Kumar) on 13. 09. 2011. Said Smt. Tara Devi and Shri Beli Ram Sharma had also made frequent telephonic conversation with each other and also Sh. Rupinder Singh, Advocate not only on 13. 09. 2011 but even prior to that date and subsequently also, which suggests that Sh. Beli Ram Sharma and Smt. Tara Devi, Peon were in hand and glove in sponsoring the litigants to a particular Advocate and had indulged in such activities as are not becoming of a Court Servant. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi has committed an act of misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1) (I) to (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTCILE-IV That on 21. 09. 2011 Smt. Tara Devi, Peon along with Shri Beli Ram Sharam tried to influence Smt. Kashmiri Devi (Complainant) and her brother Sh. Puppinder Kumar and made them to write a false application for withdrawal of complaint made by Smt. Kashmiri Devi. After writing such application Shri Beli Ram Sharma accompanied by Smt. Tara Devi took the complainant etc. to the chambers of Hon''ble the Chief Justice without obtaining any permission whatsoever to see His Lordship. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi committed an act of grave mis-conduct, un-becoming of a public servant, thereby rendering herself liable for disciplinary action. Thus, said Smt. Tara Devi has committed an act of misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1) (I) to (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. " The following Articles of charges were framed against petitioner Beli Ram Sharma:- "ARCTICLE-I That on 13. 09. 2011 Shri Beli Ram Sharma, while functioning as Judgmeent Writer in the High Court Registry met one Smt. Kashmiri Devi (complainant) who was accompanied by her brother Sh. Sanjay Kumar and had come to Hon''ble High Court in connection with some case of her husband. The complainant and her brother were, infact, introduced to said Shri Beli Ram Sharma by Smt. Tara Devi, Peon (under suspension). Said Shri Beli Ram Sharma met the complainant and her brother during lunch hours in the canteen when Smt. Tara Devi was also accompanying them. Said Shri Beli Ram told them that their problem would be solved and that a minimum fee of Rs. Said Shri Beli Ram Sharma met the complainant and her brother during lunch hours in the canteen when Smt. Tara Devi was also accompanying them. Said Shri Beli Ram told them that their problem would be solved and that a minimum fee of Rs. 7000/- shall have to be paid by the complainant. The complainant agreed to the proposal and handed over Rs. 2000/- to Sh. Beli Ram Sharma in the presence of Smt. Tara Devi, Peon (under suspension) and also gave certain papers relating to the said case. Said Shri Beli Ram Sharma asked the complainant that the balance amount be paid by the next Friday. Said Shri Beli Ram Sharma thereafter contacted Shri Rupinder Singh, Advocate. The petition on behalf of the complainant was prepared and typed in the evening of 13. 9. 2011 at the residence of Sh. Beli Ram Sharma at Tutu and filed on 14. 09. 2011 in the Hon''ble Court through Sh. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. Thus, said Sh. Beli Ram Sharma has committed an act of grave mis-conduct, which amount to un-becoming of a public servant, thereby rendered himself liable for disciplinary action. Thus, said Sh. Beli Ram, Judgment Writer has committed an act of grave misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the CCS (conduct) Rules 1964. ARTICLE-II That on 16. 09. 2011, Smt. Kashmiri Devi (Complainant) accompanied by her brother Sh. Puppinder Kumar came to High Court in order to know the status of the case of her husband. On that day, Sh. Beli Ram Sharma and Smt. Tara Devi met them and assured that their work would be done. However, Shri Beli Ram Sharma, told that he was busy. At about 12. 30 p. m. , when the complainant could not find any clue of her case, she contacted Smt. Tara Devi, Peon who told the complainant that she was unnecessarily making the things complicated. On the said date the complainant again contacted Smt. Tara Devi on telephone and asked to return the documents and Rs. 2000/-, but Smt. Tara Devi stared threatening the complainant. In the evening, Sh. Puppinder Kumar gave a call to Sh. Beli Ram Sharma, who told that they have taken a wrong step and his brother-in-law would not be released from the jail. Thus, said Sh. 2000/-, but Smt. Tara Devi stared threatening the complainant. In the evening, Sh. Puppinder Kumar gave a call to Sh. Beli Ram Sharma, who told that they have taken a wrong step and his brother-in-law would not be released from the jail. Thus, said Sh. Beli Ram Sharma, Judgement Writer (under suspension)has committed an act of misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III That as per call-details obtained from the mobile companies, it has been revealed that said Shri Beli Ram Sharma had telephonic conversation with Smt. Kashmiri Dev ( complainant) and her brother. Said Shri Beli Ram Sharma and Tara Devi had also made frequent telephonic conversation with each other and also with Sh. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. not only on 13. 09. 2011 but even prior to that date and subsequently also, which suggests that Sh. Beli Ram Sharma and Smt. Tara Devi, Peon were in hand and glove in sponsoring the litigants to a particular Advocate and had indulged in such activities as are not becoming of a court servant. Thus, said Shri Beli Ram Sharma, Judgement Writer has committed an act of misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1) (I) to (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTCILE-IV That on 21. 09. 2011 Shri Beli Ram Sharma alongwith Smt. Tara Devi, Peon tried to influence Smt. Kashmiri Devi (Complainant) and her brother Sh. Puppinder Kumar and made them to write a false application for withdrawal of complaint made by Smt. Kashmiri Devi. After writing such application Shri Beli Ram Sharma alongiwth Smt. Tara Devi took the complainant etc. to the chambers of Hon''ble the Chief Justice without obtaining any permission whatsoever to see His Lordship. Thus, said Shri Beli Ram Sharma committed an act of grave mis-conduct, unbecoming of a public servant, thereby rendering himself liable for disciplinary action. Thus, said Shri Beli Ram Sharma, Judgement Writer has committed an act of misconduct as defined under Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. " 5. The Inquiry Officer, on consideration of the evidence placed before him, made a conclusion, that excepting article of charge No. IV, qua other articles of charges standing not proven against the petitioners. " 5. The Inquiry Officer, on consideration of the evidence placed before him, made a conclusion, that excepting article of charge No. IV, qua other articles of charges standing not proven against the petitioners. Consequently, the matter was placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice, given his donning the statutory capacity of Disciplinary Authority, whereupon, his Lordship disconcurred with the report of the Inquiry Officer AND ordered that before a verdict in disaffirmation, of, the report of the Inquiry Officer is rendered, representations and submissions, in consonance with sub rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, be elicited, from each of the writ petitioners, for theirs being placed before the disciplinary authority. The provisions of Rule 15 of the CCS & CCA Rules read as under:- "15. ACTION ON INQUIRY REPORT: (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant. (2-A) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (3) and (4). (2-A) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (3) and (4). (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " A thorough rummaging, of, the record reveals (i) that the writ petitioners made statutory representations and submissions before the Disciplinary Authority, wherein they concerted to sustain the exculpatory findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the respective representations and submissions, made before it, by each of the writ petitioners, besides on a thorough and incisive scrutiny, of the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer, His Lordship, made a conclusion, that the exculpatory findings recorded vis-a-vis each of the writ petitioners, warrant theirs being reversed and upset. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has contended with vigour, before this Court, that the essence and substance, of, the apposite sub rule (2) of Rule 15 of the CCS & CCA Rules, stands infringed, (i) whereupon severe prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioners, (ii) hence, he makes a submission that the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority in disaffirmation vis-a-vis the the one(s) recorded by the Inquiry Officer, warrant interference by this Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. However, the aforesaid submission is highly misplaced and is also not borne out, from, the material on record. However, the aforesaid submission is highly misplaced and is also not borne out, from, the material on record. The material on record makes a clear display (i) of the Disciplinary Authority, prior to His Lordship recording ad nauseam detailed findings, in disaffirmation vis-a-vis the exculpatory findings rendered qua each of the writ petitioners, by the Inquiry Officer, his Lordship proceeding to elicit written representation(s) and submission(s), from, each of the writ petitioners, (ii) also it is borne out, on a perusal of the record, of the each of the writ petitioner(s) in pursuance to the elicitation(s) sought from them, theirs making representations and submissions, before the Disciplinary Authority. In sequel with the spirit, of, the mandatory provisions of sub rule (2), of Rule 15 of the CCS & CCA Rules, hence, begetting the strictest compliance, (iii) thereupon, the submission aforesaid addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, warrants rejection. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended with vigour that the exculpatory findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, stand anvilled upon (a) proper appreciation of the material on record and (b) findings in disaffirmation thereto, recorded by the Disciplinary Authority being surmisal and conjectural and (c) hence, he contended that the exculpatory findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, upon the Articles of Charge concerned, framed respectively against the petitioners, warranting vindication, whereas, the findings in disaffirmation thereto, recorded by the Disciplinary Authority warranting reversal. 8. However, the aforesaid submission, is not sustainable, given a close reading of the order recorded, by the Disciplinary Authority, unveiling (a) of the Disciplinary Authority traversing, through, the entire evidence on record, (b) His Lordship also in making an order in disaffirmation, to the order recorded by the Inquiry Officer, rather proceeding to analyse the worth of the written submissions and representations, respectively submitted before him by each of the writ petitioners; (c) the Disciplinary Authority has recorded detailed reasons, in forming conclusions contrary, to the one(s), drawn by the Inquiry Officer; (d) the reasons afforded by the Disciplinary Authority being anvilled upon appreciation of evidence on record. The evidence attracted by the Disciplinary Authority against the writ petitioners AND in proof of the articles of charge, is both germane and relevant, to the relevant articles of charges, respectively framed against the writ petitioners. The evidence attracted by the Disciplinary Authority against the writ petitioners AND in proof of the articles of charge, is both germane and relevant, to the relevant articles of charges, respectively framed against the writ petitioners. (e) The findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority stand anvilled upon a proper appreciation of apposite thereto evidence besides the reasons supporting them are neither surmisal nor conjectural, rather are probably and possibly drawable, thereupon satiation is meted vis-a-vis the principles enshrined by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K. S. Gandhi & Others , 1991 2 SCC 716 , (i) qua the standard of proof in domestic/disciplinary proceedings, not, necessitating emanation of proof or eruption of evidence, for ensuring proof of articles of charge concerned, beyond reasonable doubt, (ii) rather the germane evidence, assuring qua, on, anvil of the principle of preponderance of probabilities, an inference being amenable to be probably drawn, of, findings harboured upon an adversarial analysis of evidence vis-a-vis the petitioners, by the Disciplinary Authority, being possibly as well as probably, hence, drawable. (g) Whereupon, with the Hon''ble Apex Court in caste titled as Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and others , 2003 3 SCC 583 , mandating, that, the scope of judicial review being impermissible, for, its being extended to reappreciation of evidence, especially for arriving at a conclusion other than the one formed by the Disciplinary Authority, (h) in sequel, with the legal principle, for the reasons aforestated, mandated in (1991)2 SSC 716, begetting satiation, thereupon, it would be grossly impermissible for this Court, to, in exercise, of, its constitutional jurisdiction, of, judicial review, proceed, to supplant and substitute, the verdict recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. (I) More so, when the view propounded by the Disciplinary Authority is a reasonable and probable view. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has with vigour contended that prior, to imposition, of, a penalty upon the writ petitioners by the Disciplinary Authority, it was enjoined upon the Disciplinary Authority, to give an opportunity of personal hearing, to the writ petitioners, whereas, with an apposite opportunity of personal hearing being not granted to the writ petitioners, espcially prior to the imposition of penalty vis-a-vis them, thereupon renders the orders impugned, to acquire a stain of vitiation. However, the aforesaid submission is in absolute disconcurrence with the provisions of sub rule (4) to Rule 15 of the CCS & CCA Rules, wherein an explicit mandate, occurs qua prior to the imposition of penalty(ies), upon, the delinquent(s), it being not necessary, for the Disciplinary Authority to give vis-a-vis them, any opportunity, to make representation qua the penalty proposed to be imposed upon them. In sequel, the aforesaid submission is rejected. 10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petitions which are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.