ORDER: P.Naveen Rao, J. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings dated 01/08/2008 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 31 of 2004 and the orders of the Hon’ble A. P. Administrative Tribunal dated 03/01/2013 in O.A.No 5403 of 2010 to the extent of punishment of stoppage of pension of the petitioner is concerned by declaring the said orders as perverse suffer from lack of evidence harsh and disproportionate to the charge arbitrary vindictive illegal and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to pay pension and all pensionary benefits to the petitioner with time to time revisions and pass….” 2. Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services – I, appearing for the respondents. 3. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Inspector of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Mahabubnagar District. On a complaint lodged that petitioner demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2500/-, from the complainant to do official favour, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap on 29.03.2003. According to ACB, the trap was successful and the amount of Rs.2500/-, was recovered from petitioner. 4. Based on the report of ACB, instead of authorizing prosecution before the Criminal Court, petitioner was placed on defence before the Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings (for short TDP). The Tribunal framed charge alleging that “actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of official position on 29.03.2003, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2500/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant Sri K. Siva Kumar, S/o. Sri K. Basappa, resident of Nawabpet, Mahabubnagar District, for showing official favour in demarcating and fixing boundaries of his agricultural land in Sy.No.785/3, situated at Yenamangandla Village of Nawabpet Mandal and thereby guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal), Rules 1989”. The TDP held petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. During the pendency of proceedings before TDP, petitioner retired from service. Based on the finding recorded by the TDP, Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.413, Revenue (VIGILANCE.IV.2) Department, dated 11.05.2010, withholding the entire pension and pensionary benefits of petitioner. The TDP held petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. During the pendency of proceedings before TDP, petitioner retired from service. Based on the finding recorded by the TDP, Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.413, Revenue (VIGILANCE.IV.2) Department, dated 11.05.2010, withholding the entire pension and pensionary benefits of petitioner. In substance, the petitioner is held guilty of accepting illegal gratification to do official favour. 5. Challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Government, petitioner filed O.A.No.5403 of 2010, before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, agreed with the finding recorded by TDP. However, the Tribunal found that withholding the entire pension and pensionary benefits of employee retired from service would cause hardship to the employee, modified the punishment, directing release of other pensionary benefits, other than the pension, if any, payable to the applicant and are not liable to be stopped. 6. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal and also the finding recorded by TDP, dated 01.08.2008. 7. Though petitioner does not challenge the order of punishment imposed by the Government but challenges the order of TDP, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. 8. According to the complainant, he applied to conduct survey and demarcate the land in Sy.No.785/3 of Yenmangandla Village, with great difficulty survey was conducted but the report of survey was not furnished to him; that he was made to visit the office of petitioner again and again, and petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.3000/- but he was not willing to pay the bribe. With great difficulty he paid Rs.500/- and for the balance amount, he was asked to come to the office of petitioner on 29.03.2003. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he lodged complaint with the ACB and as instructed by ACB, he went to the office of petitioner to offer the balance amount of bribe that was demanded by petitioner. According to complainant, as petitioner was not receiving the amount demanded, he thrust the money into the pocket of the petitioner and immediately alerted ACB. It is on record that after the raid was conducted by the ACB, the hands of petitioner were subjected to phenolphthalein test, where the right hand fingers turned into pink colour. The chemical test on the inner lining of right side hip pant pocket of petitioner also yielded positive result. 9. It is on record that after the raid was conducted by the ACB, the hands of petitioner were subjected to phenolphthalein test, where the right hand fingers turned into pink colour. The chemical test on the inner lining of right side hip pant pocket of petitioner also yielded positive result. 9. Before the Tribunal, petitioner asserted that he did not demand and accept money and complainant forcibly thrust the money into his pocket. This version of petitioner was not accepted by the TDP and TDP held the charge as “proved”. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no occasion for petitioner to demand money from the complainant as survey was already conducted and survey report was ready to be furnished to the complainant. 11. On going through the record once again, the APAT also noticed that in the panchnama drawn pursuant to the survey (Ex.P1), the extent of land claimed to be in possession of complainant was left blank by petitioner. Therefore, the APAT found the version of petitioner that there was no occasion for him to demand money, as no official favour was required to be conferred on the complainant, not valid. 12. To appreciate the contention of petitioner, we have also looked into Ex.P1 document, which is the panchanama drawn by petitioner after the survey of land was conducted. It is seen that petitioner left a blank at the place concerning the extent of land found in Sy.No.785/3 whereas, he has mentioned the extent of land in Sy.No.780. It is appropriate to note at this stage that the purpose to conduct survey was to identify the extent of land in Survey No.785/3 and specify the boundaries. Thus, indicating the extent of land in Survey No.785/3 is crucial. We have specifically asked learned counsel for petitioner to clarify. The learned counsel for petitioner is not able to explain this discrepancy. Having regard to the fact that the APAT considered this aspect to reject the contention of petitioner that there was no occasion for him to demand bribe, petitioner ought to have specifically asserted the reasons for such discrepancy and why he left blank the extent of land from 10.03.2003 to 29.03.2003, if there was no intention to demand bribe. 13. In departmental proceedings what is required is the probability of delinquent employee committing misconduct. 13. In departmental proceedings what is required is the probability of delinquent employee committing misconduct. The theory of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ is applicable while assessing the delinquency of an employee but not ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ as required in criminal proceedings. [M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 ; Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, (2006) 10 SCC 572 ; West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 729 ; SBI Vs. R. Periyasamy, (2015) 3 SCC 101 ]. In Deport Manager, A.P. SRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “8………..…When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in an offence in criminal charge”………. 14. The TDP as well as the APAT, found that though complainant specifically did not support the version of the prosecution but statement given by him immediately after the incident and at the time of lodging complaint clearly points out that petitioner was required to perform official duty to conduct survey, draw panchanama and furnish survey report but he was not discharging that duty even though request was made several times. Further, even though the panchnama was drawn on 10.03.2003, he did not furnish to complainant the panchnama report till 29.03.2003 and kept the relevant entry blank. These circumstances clearly establish delinquency of the petitioner. 15. In the facts of this case, we do not see any error in the findings recorded by the TDP and the APAT holding the petitioner guilty. Though once an allegation of demand and acceptance of money is proved, gravest of penalties has to be inflicted, the APAT modified the quantum of punishment imposed. Petitioner can not expect more than the relief granted by the APAT. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Though once an allegation of demand and acceptance of money is proved, gravest of penalties has to be inflicted, the APAT modified the quantum of punishment imposed. Petitioner can not expect more than the relief granted by the APAT. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.