ORDER : RAVI MALIMATH, J. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as an Executive Engineer in the Mysuru City Corporation, Vani Vilas Water Supply and Drainage Division. A complaint was lodged on 22.01.2008 vide Annexure-A and complaint dated 29.05.2008/03.06.2008 to the Hon’ble Lokayukta with regard to the substandard road works in J.P. Nagar, Mysuru. 2. Based on the complaint an investigation report was called for from the Technical Wing of the Lokayukta. A detailed report dated 15.01.2009 was submitted opining that the allegation made against the respondents that they have carried out substandard road works, is not established. Thereafter yet another complaint was lodged on 22.11.2008 with regard to the very same subject matter. A show-cause notice was issued to the Commissioner, Mysuru Mahanagara Palike and once again a report was called for. The second report was dated 27.08.2012. The report indicated that the three officers including the petitioner were responsible for misappropriation. That due to the acts of the petitioner and the two other officers, there has been a financial loss to the Corporation. Thereafter proceedings were sought to be initiated. Subsequently on 15.02.2014 the Lokayukta held that “the work referred in the complaint is of the year 2006 relating to substandard work. At this juncture, it may not be possible to ascertain the correctness of the same. No purpose would be served by keeping the complaint. In view of the same, complaint is closed.” Subsequently, proceedings were initiated. The State referred the matter to the Lokayukta to hold a departmental enquiry. A report was submitted. Thereafter the Government passed an order and forwarded the matter to the 4th respondent – Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (for short ‘the Board’) passed a resolution imposing a punishment to recover a sum of Rs.2,23,500/from the petitioner in 24 monthly instalments and also imposed a punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the basic pay. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel submits that even though various submissions have been made with regard to the enquiry and the material on record, he would restrict his contentions insofar as quantum of punishment is concerned. He contends that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, even if the charge is held to be proved against him. 4. He contends that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, even if the charge is held to be proved against him. 4. The same is disputed by the respondents’ counsel. 5. However, on hearing learned counsels and on examination of the entire material on record, we are of the view, that the punishment imposed appears to be disproportionate to the charges leveled against the appellant. Therefore, it would not be necessary to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. It would suffice to alter the punishment imposed on him. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. The punishment imposed stands modified as follows : 1. Recovery of Rs.2,23,500/- in 24 monthly instalments is sustained. 2. The further punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the basic pay is set aside and the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect shall stand substituted with effect from 8.1.2018.