JUDGMENT 1. - On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Departmental Enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") was initiated against the petitioner with respect to certain allegations while he was working as Patrolling Officer at Jalore in the year 1999. A memorandum allegation contending 3 charges was served upon him on 10.7.1991. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of first charge and held him guilty of charges No. 2 and 3. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner while working as a Patrolling Officer instead of a using Government vehicle, hired a private Jeep for the purpose of raid. The Enquiry Officer also found that the petitioner entered into quarrel with his subordinate staff namely Sarva Shri Vijay Singh, Deep Singh and Sagat Singh. Both the charges being charge No. 2 and 3 were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Officer inflicted a punishment of withholding of 3 annual increment with cumulative effect by order dated 25.2.1993. The petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by order dated 31.1.1994. 4. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined the challenge to the impugned orders only to the extent of quantum of punishment. Ordinarily, it is not for this court to interfere with the quantum of punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned, the only allegation is that the petitioner instead of using Government vehicle has used the private vehicle for the purpose of raid. The say of petitioner is that there was shortage of Government vehicle in the preventive force and as such most of the patrolling parties used to engage private vehicle for the purpose of raid. This statement of fact has not been controverted by the Department. It has been admitted that there was shortage of Government vehicle and such as a practice private vehicles were used for the purpose of raid. It is clearly appears to be a technical breach of the instruments. As regards the second charge, it clearly appears that the petitioner himself had filed a First Information Report with regard to the incident. It has been admitted that there was shortage of Government vehicle and such as a practice private vehicles were used for the purpose of raid. It is clearly appears to be a technical breach of the instruments. As regards the second charge, it clearly appears that the petitioner himself had filed a First Information Report with regard to the incident. The material on record shows that it was a subordinate staff which misbehaved with the petitioner. Whatever happened between the petitioner and his subordinate staff may be unfortunate but cannot be said to be a dimension which calls for a major penalty. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, that the major penalty of stoppage of 3 increments which cumulative effect is by all standard disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The ends of justice would meet if the punishment is reduced to minor penalty which can be done by deleting the word cumulative effect.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 25.2.1993 withholding of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect is substituted by stoppage of 3 annual increments. Accordingly the orders of the Appellate Authority also stand modified. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******