JUDGMENT : In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) the appellant viz., Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) has assailed the validity of the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by learned single judge, by which writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 18.06.2002 by which the respondent was compulsorily retired has been quashed and a direction has been issued that he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter. 2. The respondent was employed as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the establishment of the Corporation and at the relevant time was posted in Bellary District. He was trapped for accepting the bribe of Rs.1,000/-during 1994. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section with 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the respondent was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt. Thereupon the appellant filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal, which was also dismissed on 19.03.1999. 3. After dismissal of the criminal appeal, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the appellant and a charge sheet was issued to the respondent containing the following two charges: Charge No.1: You, ABE -Sri.KNM Sreekantaswamy, While working as Asst. Executive Engineer, KEB, Bellary Rural, on 27.07.1994, demanded the complainant -Sri.H.Sambashiva, S/o Hanumanthappa, R/o Hariginadoni Village, Taluk and District Bellary, to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/-for supply of electrical energy to the IP set of borewell in Sy.No.143 of the same village. Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming and a Board Employee in violation of Regulation No.3(1) of KEB Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1988. Charge No.2: In continuation of the above demand, you, ABE, demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1,000/-from the above named complainant on 28.07.1994 in order to do the above official work. Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Board Employee in violation of Regulation No.3(1) of KEB Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1988. 4. Thereby, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Board Employee in violation of Regulation No.3(1) of KEB Employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1988. 4. The departmental enquiry was conducted through Lokayukt who in turn delegated the enquiry to the Deputy Registrar Enquiry-II, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore. In the aforesaid enquiry, both the charges leveled against the respondent were found to be proved. On the basis of the enquiry report dated 30.07.2001, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent vide order dated 18.06.2002. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge who by an order dated 03.03.2011, inter alia held that since, the complainant was not consistent in his statement before the criminal court and in the domestic enquiry, by itself is a sufficient ground to hold that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were bad in law. The order dated 18.06.2002 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement was quashed and the respondent was held entitled to all the emoluments. In the aforesaid factual background, the respondent has approached this court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an acquittal in a criminal proceeding does not take away the right of the employer to initiate or continue a departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in interfering with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and ought to have appreciated that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which decision is made. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was inconsistency in the statements made by the complainant before the criminal court and in the domestic enquiry, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were bad in law. It is submitted that the respondent has now retired and is receiving the full pension. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, we may refer to the well settled principles with regard to scope of judicial review of interference with the disciplinary proceeding. In 'STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. VS. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, we may refer to the well settled principles with regard to scope of judicial review of interference with the disciplinary proceeding. In 'STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. VS. S.SREE RAMA RAO', AIR 1963 SC 1723 it was held that high court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry. It is only concerned to determine whether the enquiry held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice have been followed. It has also been held that where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty of holding an enquiry has accepted and which may support the conclusion. It is not the function of the high court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. Similar view was reiterated in 'B.C.CHATURVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.', (1995) 6 SCC 749 . In 'HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR VS. SHASHIKANTH S. PATIL AND ANOTHER', (2000) 1 SCC 416 , it was held that interference with the decision of the departmental authorities is permitted if such authority has held the proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations providing the mode of departmental enquiry. [Also See: PRAVIN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2020) 9 SCC 471 ]. 8. In 'STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. NEMICHAND NALWAYA', (2011) 4 SCC 584 , it has been held that no interference shall be made in a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that another view is possible on the basis of material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of evidence and reliable nature of evidence will not be a ground for interfering with the findings. In 'STATE OF BIHAR VS. PHULPARI', (2020) 2 SCC 130 , it has been held that standard of proof in the criminal proceeding and the departmental enquiry is different. In 'STATE OF BIHAR VS. PHULPARI', (2020) 2 SCC 130 , it has been held that standard of proof in the criminal proceeding and the departmental enquiry is different. In criminal case, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental enquiry the charges have to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 9. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled principles, the facts of the case in hand may be examined. From perusal of the enquiry report dated 31.07.2007, it is evident that before the enquiry officer, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant viz., the complainant, accompanying witness and investigating officer and 6 documents were marked viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondent had examined himself and two witnesses and got marked 7 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. The enquiry officer has placed reliance on the testimony of the investigating officer as well as the accompanying witness and has held that amount offered by the complainant to the respondent was recovered in the presence of panchas. On the basis of the meticulous appreciation of the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, enquiry officer has recorded a finding that both the charges against the respondent were proved. However, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of compulsory retirement only on the following ground: The complainant note being consistent in his statements before the criminal court and at the domestic enquiry is sufficient ground for this court to hold that the findings are bad in law. 10. Thus, in a cryptic manner, the learned Single Judge has held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are bad in law. The learned Single Judge has neither referred to the evidence which was adduced before the enquiry officer nor has recorded a finding that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in excess of jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge has acted as an appellate authority while exercising the powers of judicial review. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in the eye of law, it is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.