ORDER : S.G. PANDIT, J. The petitioner, a dismissed Police Head Constable is before this Court, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.10.2020 in Application No.2045/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to the order of penalty of dismissal dated 06.06.2020 (Annexure-A7) is rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner was working as a Police Head Constable and at the relevant point of time, he was in the Special Police Forest Mobile Squad, Chikkamagalur. It is stated that on 02.06.2016, the petitioner received a communication that one of his friend, Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, was arrested in Crime No.119/2016. On receiving the said information, the petitioner went to the said Basavanahalli Police Station around 7.30 a.m. in order to ascertain the circumstances under which his friend was arrested. While the petitioner was talking to the Station House Officer, the said Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, escaped from custody. It is stated that, to escape from their responsibility, the Sentry and the Station House Officer made a statement that at the instance and with the aid of the petitioner, the said Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, escaped from custody. A case was also registered against the petitioner for aiding the said Sri.D.Suresh to escape from custody and for assaulting one Sri.Ningegowda, Sentry, snatching his rifle, hurting him and escaping in a bike in which the petitioner had come to the Police Station. In the said crime registered against the petitioner, investigation was conducted and while filing the charge sheet, name of the petitioner was dropped, based on the statement of Sri.Ningegowda, Sentry. In the meanwhile, enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 6 of Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (for short “1965 Rules”) was initiated to impose major penalty, by issuing charge memo dated 04.05.2017. The Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct the enquiry submitted a report dated 24.06.2018 (Annexure-A3) holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-A5) enclosing the enquiry report (Annexure-A3) and also enclosing the reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice stating that there is no evidence on record to prove the charge, as such, accepting the enquiry report, he requested to pass the order of exoneration. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice stating that there is no evidence on record to prove the charge, as such, accepting the enquiry report, he requested to pass the order of exoneration. The 4 th respondent/Disciplinary Authority, under order dated 06.06.2020, imposed punishment of dismissal and also treated the period of suspension as suspension. Questioning the said order of penalty of dismissal, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal, under impugned order, rejected petitioner’s application, holding that the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the entire material on record, imposed the penalty of dismissal which is reasonable and proportionate. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the order of penalty, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy for petitioner as well as Smt.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vijaya Raghava Sarathy, would submit that the order of the Tribunal is the result of non-appreciation of contentions raised by the petitioner. Moreover, he submits that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are not at all considered and that, while considering the contentions of the other DGO Sri.D.Suresh, the application of the petitioner also came to be dismissed. Learned counsel Sri.Sarathy for petitioner would further submit that it is a case of no evidence and that, though more than 15 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, only one witness deposed against the petitioner. Further, he submits that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to take note of the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner while disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer to impose punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel takes us through the entire evidence recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and submits that none of the witnesses have stated or deposed about the role of the petitioner in aiding the escape of other DGO Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable. Moreover, he submits that in Crime No.119/2016 registered against the petitioner, while filing charge sheet, name of the petitioner is dropped. Therefore, he submits that in the investigation nothing is found against the petitioner and rightly his name was dropped. Moreover, he submits that in Crime No.119/2016 registered against the petitioner, while filing charge sheet, name of the petitioner is dropped. Therefore, he submits that in the investigation nothing is found against the petitioner and rightly his name was dropped. Without taking note of the said development and without examining as to whether there is any evidence against the petitioner to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, without applying its mind, held that the charges are proved against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel, inviting attention of this Court to Rule 6(9)(b) of 1965 Rules, submits that certainly the Disciplinary Authority has power to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that disagreement could be by recording reasons, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. He submits that when there is no evidence against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority could not have disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the writ petition and consequently to allow the Application by quashing the impugned order of penalty of dismissal. 6. Per contra, learned AGA Smt.Sukanya Baliga would submit that in departmental proceedings, charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities and that no strict rules of evidence are applicable. Learned AGA would invite attention of this Court to reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the second show-cause notice and submits that the evidence of P.W.15 itself is sufficient to hold that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, learned AGA would submit that in terms of Rule 6(9)(b) of 1965 Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is justified in holding that charges are proved against the petitioner. Learned AGA would submit that the charge against the petitioner is very serious and she submits that a Police Head Constable assisting another Police Constable to escape from custody would be an offense and such a person cannot be retained in service. Thus, she would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: (a) Whether the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is sufficient? Thus, she would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: (a) Whether the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is sufficient? (b) Whether the order of penalty as well as order of the Tribunal warrant interference at the hands of this Court? 8. Answer to the above points would be in the affirmative and negative respectively, for the following reasons: The charge against the petitioner in terms of Articles of Charge dated 04.05.2017 reads as follows: 9. In sum and substance, the charge against the petitioner is that, on 02.06.2016, one Sri.D.Suresh, Police Constable, was taken to custody in Crime No.119/2016 and on the said date, the petitioner came in a motorbike to the Police Station to help and aid the said Sri.D.Suresh, who was in custody, to escape from custody. In that process, the petitioner had snatched the rifle of the Sentry by assaulting the Sentry Sri.Ningegowda. The charge against the petitioner is very serious in nature and being a Police Constable helping an accused to escape would be against the interest of the Police Department and also against public interest and such persons cannot be retained in a disciplined Police Force. In the enquiry proceedings, nearly 24 witnesses were cited and out of 24, 21 persons were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and on behalf of the petitioner-DGO, he examined defense witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2. 10. P.W.15, in his evidence and cross-examination, has stated as follows: P.W.15 has stated the role played by the petitioner in escaping Sri.D.Suresh, the other DGO from the custody. 15. It is settled position of law that in departmental proceedings, no strict rules of evidence would be applicable and charges could be proved on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. P.W.15 who was working as Head Constable at Basavanahalli Police Station, Chikkamagaluru has stated that Dharanendra Swamy, the petitioner herein, came in a bike to the Police Station and while he was talking to P.W.15, he suddenly snatched the rifle of one Ningegowda by assaulting him and asked Sri.D.Suresh who was in custody to escape from the Police Station. 16. P.W.15 who was working as Head Constable at Basavanahalli Police Station, Chikkamagaluru has stated that Dharanendra Swamy, the petitioner herein, came in a bike to the Police Station and while he was talking to P.W.15, he suddenly snatched the rifle of one Ningegowda by assaulting him and asked Sri.D.Suresh who was in custody to escape from the Police Station. 16. It is true that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Rule 6(9)(b) of 1965 Rules reads as follows: “6(9)(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any articles of charge, record the reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” 17. The above rule empowers the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any of articles of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. The main ingredient of the above rule is that the Disciplinary Authority is conferred with the power to disagree and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the said purpose. In other words, if the Disciplinary Authority finds the evidence on record sufficient to prove the charge it can record its own findings on the charges against the delinquent official. 18. In the case on hand, the Disciplinary Authority issued Annexure-A5 dated 17.03.2020, second show-cause notice enclosing Annexure-A4, the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has based its disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence of P.W.15 and has come to a different conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. A portion of the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Authority reads as follows: The above reasons recorded are in accordance with Rule 6(9)(b) of 1965 Rules, and this Court would not go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons. 19. The other contention that the name of the petitioner is dropped while filing the charge sheet would have no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. 19. The other contention that the name of the petitioner is dropped while filing the charge sheet would have no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. The purpose of criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are entirely different, as such, when the Disciplinary Authority has placed reliance on the evidence recorded in the enquiry proceedings independently, the said contention would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 20. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.