ORDER : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. Though matter is listed for admission and learned AGA is on advance notice, we have taken up this matter for final disposal by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties. 2. We have heard Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned AGA appearing for respondents-State. Perused the records. 3. Disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against petitioner on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sri.Santhosh Kumar H.S., whereunder he alleged that during the year 2014-15 in Tumkur District Panchayat jurisdiction borewell water was to be tested once in pre-monsoon and once in post-monsoon season every year and earlier, Block Resource Coordinator (BRC) and Cluster Resource Coordinator (CRC) were conducting said water test and they had been terminated and during the said year i.e., 2014-15 contract was given to a private organization namely, M/s.Lession Prathishtana, Bengaluru, without calling for tender and thereby DGO had violated the directions of higher authorities and had made payment without verifying borewell water of various grama panchayaths. Said inquiry was entrusted to the Office of Lokayukta and on such entrustment, articles of charges came to be issued to petitioner and on receiving reply, inquiry was held and a report came to be submitted on 26.02.2018 (AnnexureA16) whereunder inquiry officer held, charges leveled against petitioner was proved. 4. Recommendation under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, came to be made to the appropriate government enclosing Inquiry Report and recommending thereunder to impose penalty of denial of 2 annual increments for a period of three (3) years with cumulative effect under Rule 8(iii) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules'). The disciplinary authority forwarded the Inquiry Report and issued second show cause notice calling upon the DGO to reply. On receipt of reply dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure-A19), disciplinary authority by order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure-A20) imposed punishment as recommended by the Lokayukta. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, an application came to be filed before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'tribunal') in Application No.6893/2018. By impugned order dated 22.11.2019 tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that there was no error committed by the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment by accepting the Inquiry Report. A review application came to be filed before tribunal in Review Application No.174/2019, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 12.06.2020. By impugned order dated 22.11.2019 tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that there was no error committed by the disciplinary authority in imposing the punishment by accepting the Inquiry Report. A review application came to be filed before tribunal in Review Application No.174/2019, which also came to be dismissed by order dated 12.06.2020. Hence, DGO is before this court for quashing of order passed by the tribunal dated 22.11.2019 in Application No.6893/2018 (Annexure-D) and order dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure-A20) passed by first respondent whereunder the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of withholding 2 annual increments for a period of three (3) years without cumulative effect. 6. It is the contention of Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that undisputedly as on date of entrustment of work to M/s.Lession Prathishtana, Bengaluru, for testing borewell water by issuance of work order dated 10.11.2014 was pursuant to agreement entered into on 10.06.2014 and on the said date petitioner had not even reported to duty at Tumkur District and he had joined for duty only on 22.08.2014 and worked as Executive Engineer, Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Tumkur from 22.08.2014 to 01.08.2016 and neither he had called for tender nor he had entrusted the work to the said organization and as such on that ground itself the Inquiry Report has to be quashed and consequently order of disciplinary authority is also liable to be set aside. He would further elaborate his submissions by contending that Chief Engineer of Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Tumkur by communication dated 23.04.2020 (Annexure-A-5) addressed to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayath, has clearly stated that NGO which was entrusted with work order dated 10.06.2014 had conducted test in respect of drinking water to ascertain contamination level in Tumkur District in all the 10 talukas and immediately on conducting said tests results of the tests have been uploaded in the website of the Department which disclosed the tests conducted in various talukas of Tumkur District and same had been verified by the applicant and as such there was no fault attributable to the petitioner/DGO and thereby false imputation of charges had been issued to the petitioner and inquiry is conducted resulting in Inquiry Report being submitted and accepted by the disciplinary authority. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned AGA appearing for respondents-State would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of entire material on record, we notice that though charge leveled against petitioner by issuance of imputation of charges was to the effect that he had entrusted work to a NGO -M/s.Lession Prathishtana, Bengaluru, for conducting water contamination tests in Ten (10) talukas of Tumkur District without following the procedure under Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 and he was instrumental in making payment to the said organization, even though said organization had not conducted the water testing in the talukas of Tiptur, Madhugiri and Koratagere Taluks of Tumkur District. Same has not been accepted in-toto by Inquiry Officer and rightly so for the simple reason that, petitioner-DGO had reported to duty as Executive Engineer, Rural Drinking Water and Sanitizing Division, Tumkur with effect from 20.02.2014 and had worked till 01.08.2016 and work order to said organization had been issued on 10.04.2014. Pursuant to it, agreement dated 10.06.2014 came to be entered into with M/s.Lession Prathishtana i.e., before petitioner took charge. In all, there are 2658 villages in Tumkur District comprising of 321 gram panchayats. In order to bring down the contamination level of the water to the level specified by National Rural Drinking Water Program (NRDWP), as a matter of policy, the Government had undertaken to test the borewell water once in pre-monsoon and post-monsoon every year. For the year 2014-15 M/s.Lession Prathistana, Bengaluru, was entrusted with the work by issuance of work order dated 10.04.2014, pursuant to which an agreement dated 10.06.2014 (Ex.P-7) came to be was entered into between Government and said organization. On submitting report the responsibility was cast on the petitioner to check as to whether the test had been conducted and reports were in accordance with tests so conducted. In the imputation of charges it is also alleged that petitioner had not verified the said reports and had made payments. In fact, an endorsement came to be issued to the complainant as per Ex.P-8 specifying thereunder that tests were not conducted in all the gram panchayats. In the imputation of charges it is also alleged that petitioner had not verified the said reports and had made payments. In fact, an endorsement came to be issued to the complainant as per Ex.P-8 specifying thereunder that tests were not conducted in all the gram panchayats. It is for this reason the Inquiry Officer vide paragraph 27 had rightly held contention of the DGO that tests were conducted in all the Gram Panchayaths to bring down contamination of the water to the specified level, cannot be accepted. In fact, in the Inquiry Report dated 26.02.2018 [Annexure-A16], the Inquiry Officer has held at paragraph 28 to the following effect: “28. The oral and the documentary evidence on record clearly show that in the year 2014-15, tender was called to conduct the test in all the borewells of Tumkur District to bring down the contamination of the water to the specified level fixed by NRDWP. The work was entrusted to Lession Prathishtana, Bangalore and payment was made to the said Company. But, the information given by Agrahara Gram Panchayath, Koratagere taluk, Chikkanahalli Gram Panchayath, Sira Taluk, Karadi Gram Panchayath, Tiptur taluk, tests were not conducted in the borewells, DGO without supervising the work has made payment to Lession Prathishtana. Thereby the DGO, being a Government/public servant has failed to maintain absolute integrity besides devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. Hence, I proceed to answer point No.1 in the affirmative.” (emphasis supplied by us) 9. In fact, the Inquiry Officer has taken note of the fact that payments have been made by the petitioner without supervising the work. 10. Though Mr. A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has tried to very heavily rely upon the communication dated 24.03.2020 [AnnexureA5] emanated from the Office of the Chief Engineer, Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Bengaluru, we are of the considered view that it will not come to his assistance or secure, inasmuch as, even in the said communication, the Chief Engineer has certified that Department had given a reply to the complainant when he sought for information by filing an application under Right to Information Act, stating thereunder that in Agrahara Gram Panchayath, Chikkanahalli Gram Panchayath and Karadi Gram Panchayath within the Taluks of Koratagere, Sira and Tiptur, payments have been made by petitioner without verifying as to whether water testing has been done or not. That apart, perusal of Inquiry Report would also indicate that it cannot be ascertained as to whether water testing done in all the 330 Gram Panchayaths is true or false. In other words, the Chief Engineer himself is not sure about the test having been conducted. In that view of the matter, review petition filed by petitioner has also been rightly dismissed by the tribunal. We do not find any error committed by the Disciplinary Authority or Tribunal in passing the impugned order. 11. That apart, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being only supervisory and not being an Appellate Authority sitting over the judgment on the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and scope of supervisory jurisdiction being limited, interference is not called for. Even otherwise, to satisfy ourselves as to whether there has been any jurisdictional error committed by the authorities, we have examined the case on merits, though such an exercise was not required to be held and find, there is no error committed by the authorities for the aforesaid reasons. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. Learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance, within four (4) weeks from today.