ORDER : The petitioner, who was dismissed from service as Section Superintendent in Bengaluru Police Commissioner’s Office after the necessary departmental proceedings, inter alia, on the charges of being guilty of issuing arms licenses on the basis of unofficial documents and signing for and on behalf of the Police Commissioner without his authority and without verifying the antecedents of applicants, impugned the order of dismissal dated 16.10.2002 and the appellate order dated 3.10.2003 affirming the dismissal order, before the Karnataka State Administrative Appellate Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”); and the petitioner’s application impugning these orders are rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 27.4.2017. 2. The petitioner in this petition has impugned the Tribunal’s order dated 27.4.2017 and the earlier orders by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The learned counsel in support of the petition emphasized that while the Enquiry Officer in a joint enquiry, which was instituted against the petitioner and his co-employee, exonerated the petitioner of certain charges, but found the petitioner guilty of charges that were common to both the petitioner and the co-employee, who breathed his last during pendency of the joint inquiry, despite holding that the said enquiry against the co-employee abated on his demise. The learned Counsel tried to impress upon this Court that, with the enquiry against the co-employee having been abated, a finding of guilt against the petitioner, insofar as those charges that were common to both, could not have been made by the enquiry officer; and the learned counsel contended that this material not being considered by either the appellate authority or the Tribunal, the petitioner was entitled to succeed in this petition. 3. It is seen that the inquiry officer, after considering the material on record, has found the petitioner guilty of illegally making entries in the concerned register about issuance of arms licences and issuing arms licence signing for the Commissioner without his authority and without the necessary due processes for verifying the antecedents of the applicants. 4. The first of the imputations is common to both the petitioner and the co-employee and both are found guilty of such charge, while the other imputation of signing on behalf of the Commissioner without his authority and without verification of the applicant’s antecedents is specific to the petitioner and he is found guilty of such charge by the inquiry officer. The first of the imputations is common to both the petitioner and the co-employee and both are found guilty of such charge, while the other imputation of signing on behalf of the Commissioner without his authority and without verification of the applicant’s antecedents is specific to the petitioner and he is found guilty of such charge by the inquiry officer. The appellate authority considering the charges in this regard against the petitioner and the material placed on record during the inquiry, has refused to interfere with the disciplinary authority’s order and rejected the petitioner’s appeal. 5. The Tribunal, after considering that a number of witnesses were examined and a large number of documents were marked as exhibits in the inquiry, and that the inquiry officer, based on such material, has concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charges as stated hereinabove; and has refused to interfere with the reasoning that there was adequate consideration of the evidence by the inquiry officer and also the disciplinary authority. In view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in National Fertilizers Limited and another vs. P.K. Khanna, AIR 2005 SC 3742 the Tribunal has also concluded that no exception can be taken against the decision of the disciplinary authority on the ground that there is no elaborate consideration on the submissions made by the petitioner against the inquiry officer’s report. 6. Having examined the reasoned order of the Tribunal and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any jurisdictional error or material infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal so as to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.