ORDER : 1. Shri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for certiorari to quash endorsement dated 16.02.2010 issued by respondent No.2 in No.KA VI PRA NI NI/B21/8244/2009-10, vide annexure-J, further seeking for certiorari to quash the order dated 11.06.2007, passed by respondent No.2 in No.KA VI PRA NI NI/B21/1910/2004-05 vide annexure-G, confirming the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, dated 20.01.2006 in No.KA VI PRA NI NI/B54/3021/2004-05 vide Annexure-E and consequently seeking for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to release or sanction the increments of the petitioner, if any, withheld by them with all consequential benefits. 3. It is stated that the petitioner and one Shri M.I.Naik during the year 2000 were working as Section Officer and Assistant Executive Engineer respectively in Sub-Division Office of respondent No.4. During the said period, a consumer namely M/s.Mysore Mercantile Company, Baitkol, Karwar submitted an application to the Sub-Divisional Office requesting for supply of power to his unit, which is engaged in Oil Processing and Storage. 4. Initially the said application was scrutinized by the Technical Assistant to the S.D.O. on 23.10.2000 and after receipt of processing fee from the consumer, the application was registered as MP-22 (Motive Power22) on 07.11.2000, after which the consumer was advised to approach the Section Officer namely the petitioner herein. The petitioner on receipt of the application prepared feasibility report on 08.11.2000 and submitted the same to the Sub-Divisional office for approval of sanction of power. 5. It is contended that the process of preparing feasibility report does not involve tariff determination and as such the petitioner was never involved in determining the tariff. Subsequent to the submission of the file to the Sub-Divisional Office, the said Office sanctioned the power and informed the consumer about the same on 05.12.2000 stating the tariff applicable was LT-5. Subsequent to the said approval, the Assistant Executing Engineer i.e., Shri M.I.Naik prepared an estimation, which later came to be counter signed by the petitioner and the same was approved by respondent No.4 on 23.01.2001 and installation was completed on 24.01.2005. 6. Subsequent to the said approval, the Assistant Executing Engineer i.e., Shri M.I.Naik prepared an estimation, which later came to be counter signed by the petitioner and the same was approved by respondent No.4 on 23.01.2001 and installation was completed on 24.01.2005. 6. On audit being conducted, it came to the light that the tariff applicable to the said consumer was LT-3 and not LT-5 and therefore there was a loss of Rs.1.4 lakhs to the respondent-Corporation and in this regard, articles of charges were framed against the petitioner and Shri M.I.Naik, the Assistant Executive Engineer alleging that there was dereliction of duty on their part. 7. On the basis of the said articles of charges and receiving reply from the delinquent officers i.e., the petitioner and Shri M.I.Naik, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his enquiry report, which is not dated, but produced at Annexure-B to the petition. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was delinquent, the petitioner owed a duty to bring to the notice of the respondent any error, which could have been committed in the determination of the tariff. The petitioner having done the feasibility report and counter signed the tariff determined by the said Shri M.I.Naik, it was the duty of the petitioner to verify the details. The petitioner not having done so, the enquiry officer recommended for action to be taken against the petitioner. 8. It is stated that immediately on coming to know about the enquiry having been conducted, the consumer has made up the losses suffered by the Corporation and paid the difference of tariffs between LT-3 and LT-5 and as such, there is no loss, which has been caused to the Corporation on account of such initial wrong determination. 9. The enquiry report having been submitted, respondent No.3 by his order dated 20.01.2006 imposed a penalty of withholding of two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect and withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect on Shri M.I.Naik. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.01.2006, filed an appeal before respondent No.2, the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its order dated 11.06.2007 confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed review petition, which was also, came to be dismissed. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.01.2006, filed an appeal before respondent No.2, the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its order dated 11.06.2007 confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed review petition, which was also, came to be dismissed. It is in the above background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the relief as aforementioned. 11. Shri Sabeel Ahmed on behalf of Shri A.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not involved in the determination of tariff. The petitioner’s duty only extended upto conduct of the feasibility study, the tariff was determined by the Assistant Executive Engineer i.e., Shri M.I.Naik, which is only counter signed by the petitioner. Thus, he states that there was no default committed by the petitioner, since there was no such obligation imposed on the petitioner. He further submits that there is no allegation insofar as the petitioner is concerned of any personal gain and/or collusion with either Shri M.I.Naik or the consumer relating to the alleged delinquency in determining the tariff at a lower amount than actually applicable. 12. As regards the punishment imposed, Shri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel submits that even though said Shri M.I.Naik was in-charge of the determination of tariff and the petitioner has only counter singed the same, Shri M.I.Naik has been given a penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect, whereas the petitioner has been given penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. He therefore submits that this fact alone would establish that the petitioner has been unnecessarily targeted and the entire action taken by the respondents being arbitrary, contrary to the facts available on record, is required to be quashed and the penalty imposed on the petitioner required to be set aside. 13. Per contra, Shri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner being the Section Officer and in-charge of all recommendation to be made for installations of new electrical connections. It is further submitted that the tariff determined by Shri M.I.Naik as the Assistant Executive Engineer was required to be counter signed by the petitioner. It was therefore required of the petitioner to exercise due diligence as also verify the tariff calculations prepared by Shri M.I.Naik and then only counter sign. It is further submitted that the tariff determined by Shri M.I.Naik as the Assistant Executive Engineer was required to be counter signed by the petitioner. It was therefore required of the petitioner to exercise due diligence as also verify the tariff calculations prepared by Shri M.I.Naik and then only counter sign. The aspect of counter singing of the recommendation to tariff has been introduced so as to have a proper check and balance in the process. It is not expected that the petitioner sign any proposal prepared by Shri M.I.Naik without application of mind. The non-application of mind itself is dereliction of duty and therefore, the enquiry report, finding of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is guilty of the delinquency and the consequential punishment imposed is just and proper. On this ground, Shri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel would submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Heard Shri Sabeel Ahmed on behalf of Shri A.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the papers. 15. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner expired and his legal representative have been brought on record. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has counter signed the recommendation made by Shri M.I.Naik as regard tariff fixed. The only contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner himself has not fixed the tariff. 17. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel Shri B.S. Kamate that the petitioner was to exercise due diligence, apply his mind and only on that basis counter sign the tariff determination so as to enable the Sub-Division office to consider the recommendation made. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not concerned with the tariff determination. Though the initial tariff determination may not be the concern of the petitioner, but the validation of the same was the concern of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any defect in the finding of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority as regards delinquency of the petitioner. However as regards, the punishment, I find incongruity between that imposed on the petitioner as compared to Shri M.I.Naik. Admittedly, the said Shri M.I.Naik has determined the tariff and prepared the tariff proposal, the only delinquency on the part of the petitioner is non-verification of the said proposal. 18. However as regards, the punishment, I find incongruity between that imposed on the petitioner as compared to Shri M.I.Naik. Admittedly, the said Shri M.I.Naik has determined the tariff and prepared the tariff proposal, the only delinquency on the part of the petitioner is non-verification of the said proposal. 18. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed on the petitioner ought to have been the same as that imposed on the primary delinquent officer namely Shri M.I.Naik. For this reason, the penalty imposed the petitioner of “withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect” is reduced to “withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect”. 19. Consequently, the respondents are directed to make payment of the difference amount on account such reduction within a period of 12 weeks from today to the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner, who have been brought on record. The said payment shall be made on the basis of a joint affidavit to be filed by the said legal representatives herein indicating the quantum of distribution of the amount among themselves accompanied by an indemnity affidavit. 20. In the event of the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner not filing any affidavit and there being any interse dispute between them, the time for payment of the aforesaid amount would be extended until the disputes are interse resolved between the legal representatives of the petitioner. However, the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within the aforesaid period of 12 weeks in a interest bearing Fixed Deposit, which amount shall be released on the resolution of any dispute interse between the legal representatives of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part.