Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 25.05.1991 (Annexure 3), whereby recovery of Rs. 8,500/-has been directed to be made by way of penalty, and appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 03/03/1992 (Annexure 9). 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner was appointed as Driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ("RSRTC") in December, 1985. He was plying passenger Bus of RSRTC No. RNP 1699 on Khetri-Delhi route on 29.06.1989 as alleged that when he was returning back to Khetri at about 7 kms away from Narnol, front right tyre of the Bus all of a sudden got burst, thereby it got collided with a truck standing 4 ft. away on the road; and on account of which, the damage was caused to the Bus and he also sustained injuries. For his negligence, he was served with charge sheet dated 010.1989 (Annexure 1) with the allegation inter alia that because of negligence on his part, the Bus got damaged and expenses of Rs. 5,000/-approximately were to be incurred in getting the Bus repaired. The inquiry was held against him, in which he was found to be negligent and consequently vide order dated 25.05.1991 he was asked to deposit Rs, 8,000/-in 50 equal monthly instalments towards repair of the Bus, and Rs. 500/-as against damages to the tyre. 3. Against aforesaid order dated 25.05.1991 (Annexure 3, petitioner preferred CWP No. 3860 /1991 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure 4) directing him to file appeal/representation against order dated 25.05.1991 before competent authority which shall decide the same in accordance with law. In compliance of order dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure 4) of this Court, petitioner preferred appeal and on his request, he was also supplied with copy of injury report. His appeal was rejected by the authority vide order dated 03.03.1992 (Annexure 9) holding that appeal preferred under Rule 36(2) is not maintainable, but it has also been rejected after taking note of merits of the charges levelled against him. 4. Shri Neeraj Bhatt, Counsel for petitioner submits that there was no material placed by Presenting Officer on record, by which an inference can be drawn with regard to total expenses incurred for repairing of the Bus, and in the absence of which, penalty of recovery of Rs. 8,500/-imposed upon him, is not legally sustainable. 5. 4. Shri Neeraj Bhatt, Counsel for petitioner submits that there was no material placed by Presenting Officer on record, by which an inference can be drawn with regard to total expenses incurred for repairing of the Bus, and in the absence of which, penalty of recovery of Rs. 8,500/-imposed upon him, is not legally sustainable. 5. Shri Bhatt further urged that appeal/representation was preferred by him in compliance of order dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure 4) of this Court, but still appellate authority failed to consider submissions made by him on merits against the charges, and rejected the same by non-speaking order. 6. So far as maintenance of appeal is concerned, Shri Bhatt pointed out that appeal against order of penalty is maintainable under C1.35 (e) (vii) RSRTC Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, which has not been considered by appellate authority and the premises, on which appeal preferred by him has been rejected, is contrary to provisions of the aforesaid Standing Orders, 1965. 7. It has further been urged by Shri Bhatt that neither statement of witnesses nor inquiry proceedings were supplied to him, which has prevented him of an effective opportunity to defend himself during the course of inquiry and that has caused material prejudice to him. 8. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. Shri Virendra Lodha, Counsel for respondents contended that it was a sheer negligence of petitioner while driving the Bus on Delhi-Khetri route and since he was driving at a very high speed-on account of which he lost his balance and thereby the Bus collided with truck which was parked on its side resulting in bursting the tyre and the Bus was also got damaged and in the inquiry which was held only with regard to his negligence and for recovery of expenses incurred for repairing of the Bus and after his negligence was found proved without imposing any other penalty, amount of actual expenses incurred in repairing was ordered to be recovered from him and that too in instalments. It has further been submitted that after the orders were passed by this Court, in compliance thereof , appellate authority has considered the matter apart from its maintenance as well and since there was no material placed by petitioner on record and was mere reiteration of submissions made, before Disciplinary authority, appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by him after due compliance of principles of natural justice. 9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. 10. As regards first submission made by Shri Bhatt that in the absence of any material on record to support total repair expenses of Rs. 8,000/-, and the charge imputed against him was with respect to expenses to be recovered upto Rs. 5,000/-, in such circumstances, even if the charge is held to be finally proved against him, respondents were not justified in making the order of recovery of such amount. I find from the record that it was the estimated amount of expenses to be incurred in getting the Bus repaired but finally Rs. 8,500/-was incurred in repair of the vehicle and which has finally ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and particularly in facts and circumstances when negligence was found proved against him, in my opinion, there was no error committed by disciplinary authority in making order of recovery from the petitioner with regard to the actual expenses incurred on account of negligence on the part of petitioner. 11. As regards next submission made by Shri Bhatt that despite orders of this Court, submissions made by him in appeal were not examined by appellate authority and the appeal preferred by him was rejected by non-speaking order vide order dated 03/03/1992, it is true that appeal under Cl. 11. As regards next submission made by Shri Bhatt that despite orders of this Court, submissions made by him in appeal were not examined by appellate authority and the appeal preferred by him was rejected by non-speaking order vide order dated 03/03/1992, it is true that appeal under Cl. 35(e) (vii) of Standing Orders, 1965 was maintainable but the petitioner has not been able to show as to what was the prejudice having caused to him or the infirmity & incongruity had it crept in the course of inquiry proceedings, rather it was mere reiteration of submissions made earlier by him & examined by disciplinary authority and even in writ petition, he has failed to point out any such prejudice being caused to him in the course of inquiry, in such circumstances, in my opinion, in the absence of any requirement under the relevant Rules/Regulations to pass speaking order, and while taking decision of affirmance of orders of the disciplinary authority, and when it does not otherwise cause any prejudice to him, it will not vitiate the action of the authority. 12. So far as submission with regard to non-availability of copy of statement of witnesses and inquiry proceedings, is concerned, suffice it to say that petitioner, himself , has participated in the course of inquiry, wherein statements of witnesses were recorded in his presence and apart from it, no specific allegation has been imputed as to what prejudice has caused to him on account of non-supply of copy of statement of witnesses or inquiry proceedings, so in the absence of which, in my opinion, no interference is called for in the impugned orders of disciplinary authority so also of appellate authority. 13. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith Stay Petition No. 2060/1992. No order as to costs.