ORDER : S.G. PANDIT, J. The petitioner, a retired Assistant Executive Engineer, is before this Court questioning order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru , Tribunal , in Application Nos.266-268/2018, whereunder his challenge to the order of penalty of withholding 5% of pension permanently and recovery of loss caused to the State Exchequer is rejected. 2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD Sub-Division, Gubbi, on the allegation of committing misconduct in carrying out the work of improvement and re-chip carpeting to Nelligere-Sira road from 29 to 36 KM in Gubbi Taluk, Articles of Charge dated 07.06.2014 were issued by respondent No.2. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, wherein the Disciplinary Authority examined PW1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P4, whereas petitioner herein examined himself as DW2 apart from examining another as DW1 and marking documents Exs.D1 to D9. The Enquiry Officer of respondent No.2 submitted a report dated 20.05.2016 holding the charge against all the three accused is proved. 2.1 The Upalokayukta, under recommendation dated 07.06.2016, forwarded the enquiry report to the State Government. The State Government, on receipt of enquiry report as well as recommendation, issued second show cause- notice dated 25.06.2016 to the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the second show-cause notice dated 25.06.2016, submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 04.09.2017 imposed penalty of withholding 5% of his pension in exercise of its power under Rule 214(1)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 as well as recovery of ?1,21,278/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 2.2 Questioning the order of penalty, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the aforesaid applications. The Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the applications holding that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is proper and correct and does not call for interference. Against which, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri S.V. Thilakraj for Sri H.N. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Shivareddy for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and the alleged charge against the petitioner is false and baseless. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri S.V. Thilakraj for Sri H.N. Basavaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Shivareddy for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and the alleged charge against the petitioner is false and baseless. Learned counsel would submit that the work of improvement and re- chip carpeting to Nelligere-Sira Road was entrusted to a contractor and petitioner has supervised the work in a proper manner. If the contractor has not carried out the work properly, the authorities ought to have taken action against the contractor and not against the petitioner. Further, learned counsel would submit that the charges against the petitioner are not proved by producing cogent material or evidence. As there is no cogent material on record to prove the charges, the Enquiry Officer could not have held the charges against the petitioner as proved. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the second show cause notice, which the respondent authorities have failed to consider while passing the order of penalty. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by Tribunal and would submit that the authorities have imposed penalty for the proven misconduct which, according to him, requires no interference by this Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Enquiry Officer, based on the evidence and material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioner. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would invite our attention to the impugned order of penalty and submit that the reply submitted by the petitioner has been considered and thereafter the penalty order is passed. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any violation in the procedure followed during the course of enquiry or that the petitioner has been denied any opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any violation in the procedure followed during the course of enquiry or that the petitioner has been denied any opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report indicates that the petitioner had the opportunity to cross- examine the witness examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, and moreover, the petitioner himself has examined himself as DW2 before the Enquiry Officer. In departmental proceedings strict rule of evidence is not applicable and charges are to be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, this Court would not examine writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings as if it is an appeal. In other words, it is not an appellate authority. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Deputy General Manager (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) and others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava , (2021) 2 SCC 612 , has explained the power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries and relevant paragraphs read as under: "22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan [State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1385] and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian [State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian, (1995) 1 SCC 216 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 292] and further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under : (B.C. Chaturvedi case [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , SCC pp. 759-60, para 13) “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. 759-60, para 13) “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 ] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” "24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 26. 26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained." 9. The charges against the petitioner and two others read as follows: " CHARGE: That you, 1) Sri. Devendrappa Maruthi Bajanthri DGO-1 while working as the then Assistant Engineer, PWD Sub- Division, Gubbi, that you- 2) Sri. H.N.Basavaraju DGO-2 while working as the then Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-Division Gubbi and that you-3) Sri.B.Manjunath- DGO-3, while working as the then Executive Engineer PWD Division, Tumkur had carried out work of improvements and rechip carpeting done to Nelligere-Sira road from K.M.29.00 to ?.?. 36.00 under the head of account of Dr.Nanjundappa (NABARD) during 2010-11. H.N.Basavaraju DGO-2 while working as the then Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Sub-Division Gubbi and that you-3) Sri.B.Manjunath- DGO-3, while working as the then Executive Engineer PWD Division, Tumkur had carried out work of improvements and rechip carpeting done to Nelligere-Sira road from K.M.29.00 to ?.?. 36.00 under the head of account of Dr.Nanjundappa (NABARD) during 2010-11. The spot inspection disclosed that there was deficiency in Wet Macdam Mix from Ch.29.00 to 33.00 K.M. in which the Wet Macdam Mix(W.M.M) item had been used, but an amount of ?.3,23,408/- had been found claimed on quantity not used, causing loss to the Government Exchequer and you DGOs 1 to 3 are solely responsible for the substandard work and loss of Rs.3,23,408/-. The work carried out by the PWD on Sira-Nelligere road from K.M.29.00 to 36.00 K.M. under the supervision of you-DGOs 1 to 3 was of substandard. In fact, it is clear that though substandard work was going on, you- DGOs 1 & 2, who were supervising said work, had not discharged your duty properly, so also you- DGO-3 has also failed to discharge your part of obligation, as you mechanically passed the bills. Thus, you all the DGOs 1 to 3 together have caused loss of 3,23,408/- to the Government Exchequer and you DGOs 1 to 3 are thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servants and thus committed misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of (Conduct) Rules 1966." 10. In sum and substance, charges against the petitioner are that the petitioner failed to supervise the work carried on i.e. Nelligere-Sira Road and has mechanically passed the bills. The documents placed on record and the evidence of PW1 would clearly establish the negligence of the petitioner in supervising the work of improvement and re-chip carpeting done to Nelligere-Sira Road. 11. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had properly supervised the work, whereas the contractor has not carried out the work in a proper manner, and action ought to have been initiated against the contractor. 11. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had properly supervised the work, whereas the contractor has not carried out the work in a proper manner, and action ought to have been initiated against the contractor. If the contractor had not properly carried out the work, it was the duty of the petitioner, who was Assistant Executive Engineer of the said Sub-division, to report the same to the higher-ups and it is not the case of the petitioner that he had reported the same to the higher-ups and higher-ups have failed to take any action against the contractor. It appears from the material on record that the petitioner has failed to properly supervise and also to report the substandard work carried on by the contractor. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority, taking note of the proven charges, has rightly imposed the punishment of withholding 5% of pension and recovery of loss caused to the government. 12. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.