JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record. The case of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Bamanwas Chaugan. During the period 29-30.5.1981, a revenue campaign was held by the directions of the District Collector (Land Record), Alwar for assessing the work performance of the revenue officials of the area concerned. The petitioner who was then serving as a Patwari was authorised for maintenance and upkeep of the revenue records and also to see that no unauthorised person can take benefit in this regard. During the course of campaign, it was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities that the land bearing Khasra No. 52 was recorded in revenue records in the share of Rameshwar son of Gopi, Moolya son of Balu, Narayan son of Reward etc. all by caste Haryana Brahmans. One of the recorded Khatedars of the land bearing Khasra No. 52 namely; Ram Kishore came out in the campaign and requested that his name be entered in the revenue records in place of his adoptive father Shri Narayan son of Rewad. The petitioner being the Patwari of Patwar Circle made a report to the authorised officers of the camp who vide their order dated 30.5.1981 directed to substitute the name of Late Shri Narayan by inserting the name of his adopted son Ram Kishore. The petitioner prepared a report on that basis and submitted the same to the competent authority. The petitioner being the Patwari of Patwar Circle made a report to the authorised officers of the camp who vide their order dated 30.5.1981 directed to substitute the name of Late Shri Narayan by inserting the name of his adopted son Ram Kishore. The petitioner prepared a report on that basis and submitted the same to the competent authority. Since, during the course of enquiry the irregularities were detected by the concerned authorities against petitioner, he was served charge-sheet which was issued on 16.12.1991 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1959 for short "the CCA Rules" containing the memorandum of allegations and charges to the effect that the petitioner had failed to exercise due diligence by not taking note of the important fact that Shri Naraian son of Reward in whose favour the revenue entry in the revenue records concerning the land in dispute was there was shown as dead and recommendation regarding transfer/mutation of 1/4th of his share was recommended by substituting the name of his adopted son Ram Kishore with a view to confer illegal benefits on him by transferring the land particularly when the person concerned was alive who was shown in the revenue record as dead and this has been done in gross violation of the provisions of the Land Revenue Rules. The Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Alwar was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 15.5.1992 to enquire into the matter and who according to the petitioner was appointed with the delay of six months after issuance of he charge-sheet. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the enquiry was initiated in respect of a matter which was 11 years old and the enquiry officer was appointed after a delay of about six months of the issuance of the charge-sheet. It has further been contended that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner by the authorities. 2. It has further been contended that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner by the authorities. 2. The aforesaid contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are absolutely contrary to the record and are not sustainable looking to the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner and since the enquiry officer who was appointed had afforded full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is only on the basis of the evidence on the record it has been established that the petitioner had committed gross irregularities as aforesaid by transferring the land in question in favour of another person particularly when, the person in whose favour the land was actually recorded in the revenue records was alive and substitution of the name of Shri Narayan has been shown with a view to give illegal benefit to his son Ram Kishore and hence the petitioner was neither competent nor authorised to make such transfer in violation of the rules. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Enquiry Officer whereby, the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on him, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said Appellate Authority confirming the findings of the enquiry officer observed that the case falls within the four corners 16(12) of the CCA Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that lenient view should have been taken in the matter since the petitioner was due to attain the age of superannuation as on the date when the order of punishment was passed and only one year of his service was left before his date of superannuation. In my view this argument does not give any benefit to the petitioner in any way looking to the seriousness of the charges and the allegations which stood fully proved and established on the record against him.There is no case on merits hence, the petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******