ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The matter has been pending before this Court since 2006 and despite several opportunities having been afforded, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no option but to adjudicate the petition on its own merits. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggreived by the action of respondents whereby the penalty has been imposed upon him vide order dated 29.12.1999 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar and order dated 05.02.2002 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Appeal), Jaipur. 3. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Constable with a satisfactory service record, was issued a charge sheet alleging negligence in an incident dated 01.12.1998, wherein an accused named Fauja Singh escaped from a running train while returning from court duty. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report, leading to the penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect on 29.12.1999. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation explaining that insufficient staff, sudden power failure, and a broken emergency chain contributed to the accused’s escape. His petition before the Governor was also rejected on 05.02.2002. Meanwhile, in the connected criminal case under Section 223 /34 IPC , the petitioner was acquitted on 07.09.2005. Aggrieved by the disciplinary action taken in violation of natural justice, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material and orders annexed with the writ petition. 5. Upon a careful appraisal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there was ample evidence to establish, and reasonably infer, that the petitioner had exhibited negligence in the discharge of his official duties. Owing to his casual and indifferent approach, the accused in his lawful custody succeeded in making good his escape. The evidentiary aspects bearing upon this issue have been duly deliberated upon and adjudicated during the departmental proceedings, wherein adequate and meaningful opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to defend his case. The penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the lapse and cannot, by any stretch, be termed onerous or disproportionate. The evidentiary aspects bearing upon this issue have been duly deliberated upon and adjudicated during the departmental proceedings, wherein adequate and meaningful opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to defend his case. The penalty imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the lapse and cannot, by any stretch, be termed onerous or disproportionate. 5.1 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 passed by the authorities, which appears to have been passed upon due deliberation and in accordance with law. 6. 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 when there is a challenge to the order of punishment awarded in disciplinary proceeding. 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. 6.1 It is a settled position of service jurisprudence that the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in two distinct and independent spheres. 6.1 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. It is true that in the connected criminal case under Section 223 /34 IPC , the petitioner was acquitted on 07.09.2005; however, it is well-settled that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings travel on distinct planes and may lawfully culminate in different conclusions. Thus, the pendency or outcome of one cannot eclipse or nullify the jurisdiction of the competent authority to proceed with the other. 7. 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.