JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 2. The petitioner who is an employee of the Transport Department of the State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter alia that he was served with a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (sic Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules), 1958 (for short "the Rules") by respondent No. 2 which contains the imputation of allegations against the petitioner pertaining to the incident dated 4.7.1993. Perusal of Annexure 1 dated 22.4.1996 reveals that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet as regards the three allegations contained therein to which I am concerned here that to decide whether the findings of the enquiry officer which have been confirmed by the appellate authority as regards allegation No. 3 in the charge-sheet, involves interference by this court in this writ petition filed against the impugned order Annexure 7. The gravamen of charge in respect of the said allegations against the petitioner is that while during the course of inspection at the check-post where the petitioner was discharging his duties, it was found that a sum of Rs. 587/- was recovered lying concealed under the register of entries at the said check-post and the petitioner failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation as regards the said amount. Three witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded by the inspecting officer and it was revealed that at the said check-post at Haredi apart from the entry fee which is charged from the vehicles, the concerned officials who are posted at the said check-post are charging illegal gratification from the drivers of the vehicles which pass through the said check-post. 3. Since the petitioner was found guilty of the charge, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules and the competent authority after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after recording the statements of the concerned witnesses who were present at the site, imposed the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who too passed an order in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 15.5.96. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court. 4. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who too passed an order in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 15.5.96. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this court. 4. Prima facie I am of the view that no arbitrariness can be attributed either to the competent authority which passed the impugned order or the appellate authority which confirmed the said order. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given full opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed against him. In my view no mala fides can be attributed either to the competent authority or the appellate authority for the aforesaid reasons. 5. As a result of the above discussions I find no merit to interfere with the orders passed by the concerned authorities and the same is dismissed being not maintainable.Petition dismissed. *******