Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondents whereby 25% of his pension has been withheld for a period of one year and he has been denied his full and final pensionary benefits. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner entered the Rajasthan Government Service in the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare as a Drug Controller and served for 35 years until his retirement on 31.03.2013. Despite an unblemished record, he has been receiving only provisional pension since retirement without any stated reason. A complaint was lodged against him alleging bribery, but the Anti-Corruption Bureau, after investigation, filed a Final Report exonerating him, which was accepted by the ACB Court, Kota. A subsequent preliminary enquiry also found no misconduct. However, a departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958, and even that enquiry concluded in 2015 that no charges of bribery or harassment were proved. Despite this, the Department of Personnel disagreed with the findings and, based on its own assessment, imposed a penalty of withholding 25% of the petitioner’s pension for one year vide order dated 13.07.2018. Aggrieved by this, he has preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of the said order and grant of full pensionary benefits. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court. 4. From the material available on record, it emerges that on 17.07.2003, the delinquent officer, Shri Subhash Chand Jain, had repeatedly threatened the complainant, Shri Mahendra Maheshwari, with suspension of the licence of Shop No. 11, Harshita Medical, Bajriya, Sawai Madhopur, and had demanded an illegal gratification of ?10,000/-. Further, on 18.07.2003, he sent his emissary, Shri Gyanchand Jain, to visit the shop of the complainant for receiving the bribe amount. It also stands established that an amount of ?6,000/- was actually received by Shri Gyanchand Jain, proprietor of Lakshmi Medical Agency, Bajriya, Sawai Madhopur. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against Shri Subhash Chand Jain are duly proved and the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority rest upon unimpeachable material and cannot be termed perverse by any judicial standard. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against Shri Subhash Chand Jain are duly proved and the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority rest upon unimpeachable material and cannot be termed perverse by any judicial standard. It is not in dispute that Shri Jain superannuated from State service on 31.03.2013. Consequent upon the proof of charges, the State Government has taken a tentative decision to withhold 25% of the pension payable to him for a period of one year in terms of Clause 7(1) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1998. 5. At the very outset, it needs to be clarified that the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory and not appellate in nature. The Court, while exercising such jurisdiction, is not required to sit as a Court of Appeal over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, nor can it reappreciate the evidence as if examining the correctness of a judicial verdict. The scope of interference by this Court in the realm of disciplinary proceedings is exceedingly narrow. The interference is warranted only where the procedure prescribed under law has not been duly observed, the inquiry stands vitiated for want of competence of the authority, the foundational principles of natural justice have been disregarded, or where the punishment imposed is so grossly or shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved that it shakes the conscience of the Court. Interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only in exceptional circumstances where the proceedings stand vitiated on account of patent illegality, procedural impropriety, violation of natural justice, or when the findings are found to be perverse, bereft of evidence, or actuated by mala fides. 5.1 It is a settled position of service jurisprudence that the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in two distinct and independent spheres. The standard of proof in a criminal case is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in departmental proceedings, the preponderance of probabilities is the guiding yardstick. Thus, the pendency or outcome of one cannot eclipse or nullify the jurisdiction of the competent authority to proceed with the other. 5.2 In the present case, the record manifests that the competent authority has adhered to the prescribed procedure, afforded due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and arrived at its conclusion upon due consideration of the evidence available on record. 5.2 In the present case, the record manifests that the competent authority has adhered to the prescribed procedure, afforded due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and arrived at its conclusion upon due consideration of the evidence available on record. The punishment imposed also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the nature of the charge so as to shock the conscience of this Court. This Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, therefore, finds no reason to dislodge the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, which appears to have been passed upon due deliberation and in accordance with law. 5.3 At this stage, this Court is only required to undertake a prima facie scrutiny of the material placed on record. It appears that the recovery was effected from Shri Gyanchand, who is stated to be an associate of the petitioner. The proprietor of the medical store has categorically alleged that the petitioner had been demanding illegal gratification and, acting under duress, he was compelled to accede to such demand. It is further alleged that the petitioner had deputed his aide, Shri Gyanchand, to collect the bribe amount, whereupon he was apprehended. It is true that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has returned a finding of guilt against the petitioner; however, it is well-settled that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings travel on distinct planes and may lawfully culminate in different conclusions. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is of a much higher pedigree, proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in disciplinary proceedings, the charge may stand established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the outcome of the criminal case cannot, by itself, foreclose the disciplinary authority from arriving at its own, independent conclusion. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that if any statutory remedy of appeal or representation is available to the petitioner under the relevant Service Rules, he shall be at liberty to avail the same in accordance with law. 7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, are hereby disposed of.