ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari the quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2019, bearing No. Passed by the 2 nd respondent vide Annexure-Q to the writ petition. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner in the post held by him with all other service and other benefits. c) Issue any other appropriate order, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The respondents issued a recruitment notification in the month of January, 1992, inviting the application for the post of Driver, Grade-II from 7 th Standard passed candidates. The petitioner had undergone the process and the petitioner was selected, and appointed for the post of driver vide order dated 27.08.1992. The petitioner had completed the probationary period and after due verification of the documents and certificates, he was confirmed in the post of driver. By virtue of the order dated 07.09.2017, a false complaint was made to respondent No.1 about the transfer certificate of the petitioner. He had written to respondent No.4 to verify the school records of the petitioner. In turn, respondent No.4, by communication dated 11.09.2017, called upon the petitioner to furnish his school certificates. The petitioner submitted a reply to respondent No.4, vide reply dated 13.09.2017 and he had not received the original transfer certificate and marks card, cast certificate submitted by him at the time of his appointment and requested respondent No.4 to verify his personal file and SR. Meanwhile, the Headmaster of Government, Higher Primary School, Honnavara had submitted a report to respondent No.4 stating that, the petitioner with admission No.16/72-73 had not studied in the school vide communication dated 13.09.2017. On 13.08.2018, after the lapse of one year, respondent No.3 issued a memorandum of charges, thereby alleging the petitioner had produced the false transfer certificate and obtained employment in the respondent company. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and denied the article of charges levied against the petitioner regarding producing the false certificate vide reply dated 27.08.2018. Respondent No.4 had appointed an Enquiry Officer by name Badrinath C.N. with J.Sathish as the presenting Officer. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and denied the article of charges levied against the petitioner regarding producing the false certificate vide reply dated 27.08.2018. Respondent No.4 had appointed an Enquiry Officer by name Badrinath C.N. with J.Sathish as the presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted his findings, thereby holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved and also held that the respondent authorities are also at fault and have erred at three stages. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the Enquiry Officer's report. Respondent No.4 has passed an order of removal from service dated 07.12.2019. Hence, the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of removal, filed this writ petition. 3. The respondents filed a statement of objections, admitting that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. It is contended that in 2017, the respondents have received an anonymous complaint against the petitioner to verify the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner. Based on the verification, respondent No.4 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish his school records. The petitioner submitted a reply stating that, all the original documents are with the respondents and the same were submitted at the time of verification of the documents. It is contended that respondent No.4 obtained a report from the Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, wherein he has stated that the petitioner with Admission No.16/72 -73 had not studied in the school. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a memorandum of article of charges alleging that the petitioner has produced a false transfer certificate and obtained an employment in the respondent Corporation. The respondents have appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after recording the evidence of witnesses, has submitted a report stating that the charges levied against the petitioners are proved and the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with enquiry report. The petitioner submitted a reply. The respondents being dissatisfied with the charges levied against the petitioner are proved, issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply. The petitioner submitted a reply. The respondents being dissatisfied with the charges levied against the petitioner are proved, issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice, wherein the Enquiry Officer recommended for withholding of one increment with cumulative effect one annual increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect. Respondent No.2-reviewing authority disagreed with the recommendation by the Enquiry Officer, passed an order for removal from service. The order passed by the reviewing authority is just and proper and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents on the anonymous letter has initiated an enquiry proceeding. He submits that the petitioner was appointed in 1992 and the respondents at the time of issuing an appointment order have verified the records and found that the records produced by the petitioner's are genuine and thereafter, the petitioner was appointed and he has worked for more than 28 years in the respondent Corporation. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has recommended for withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect. He submits that the reviewing authority without considering the findings reported by the Enquiry Officer, has passed an order of punishment i.e., removal from service. The order of punishment is disproportionate. He also submits that the enquiry was conducted after lapse of 28 years from the date of his joining service. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the complaint received by the respondents, they initiated an enquiry against the petitioner and issued an article of charges and the charges levied against the petitioner's are proved. He submits that the reviewing authority can disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as per Rule 11 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short 'the Regulations, 1987'). Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in accordance with Rule 11 of the Regulations, 1987. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in accordance with Rule 11 of the Regulations, 1987. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the Karnataka Electricity Board issued a recruitment notification in the month of January 1992, inviting an applications for the post of Driver, Grade-II from 7 th Standard passed candidates. The petitioner undergone selection and he was selected and appointed for the post of driver on 27.08.1992 and he had completed his probationary period. On 07.09.2017, a compliant was addressed to respondent No.1 about fake documents produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment for the post of driver. The respondents issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the original records, but he submitted a reply stating that the original documents are with respondent No.4. Meanwhile, the Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Honnavar had submitted a report stating that the petitioner with Admission No.16/72-73 had not studied in the school. The memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has produced a false documents and obtained an employment in the respondent-Company. The Enquiry Officer has submitted a report stating that the charges levied against the petitioner's are proved and also recorded that the respondent authorities are also at fault and have erred at three stages. A similar issue aroses before Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Rajendra D. Harmalkar in Civil Appeal No. 2911/2022 disposed off on 21.04.2022 at para No.7.1, which reads as follows: "7.1 In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service." 9. Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service." 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has produced the fake certificates and obtained the employment. The Disciplinary Authority considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also reply submitted by the petitioner, has passed an order imposing punishment of removal from service. The issue involved in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (S upra ) is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.