Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-In this petition, petitioner has assailed (1) order of punishment dt.112.1986 (Annex-3) reducing his basic pay in pay scale by two stages; so also (2) order dt. 010.1990 (Annex-8) rejecting review petition preferred by him. 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner, who was a Member of Rajasthan Administrative Service of 1961 batch, was working in Selection Scale of RAS. He was served with charge-sheet dt. 25.02.1983 (Annex-1) imputing in all five charges against him under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules"). The imputed charges related to sale and purchase of residential plots in between 1969 to 1974 from persons residing at the place of his posting, which was in violation of Rajasthan Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971 because sale and purchase of residential plots were done without prior intimation to the employer so also upon borrowing money from person residing at places of his posting. Petitioner denied all the charges and thereupon Commissioner (Inquiries) was appointed as inquiring authority. In course of inquiry, the department and petitioner produced documents and witness in support of and against the charges levelled, besides petitioner submitted his written statement in defence. After arguments were finally heard by inquiry officer, report dt.11.04.1986 (Annex-2) was submitted by the inquiry officer, wherein petitioner was held guilty of charges No. 1, 2, 4, and 5, charge No.3 was not found proved. Based on the findings recorded in inquiry report, disciplinary authority examined record of inquiry forwarded under Rule 16 (8) of CCA Rules and concurred with findings recorded by inquiry officer and thereafter recording its own findings in relation to each of charges, upholding the findings of guilt against petitioner and inflicted penalty of reduction in pay scale at two stages in basic pay vide order dt.112.1986 (Annex-3), against which petitioner preferred review petition under Rule 33 of CCA Rules; and after considering all submissions made by petitioner, the reviewing authority rejected review petition by a well speaking order dt.010.1990. (Annex-8). Hence, this petition. 3. (Annex-8). Hence, this petition. 3. Shri J.K. Yadav , Counsel for petitioner contended that for the incidents of period in between 1969 to 1972 except of one relating to year 1974, charge-sheet was served upon petitioner at a very belated stage in February, 1983 and without examining the merit of allegations levelled the very initiation of disciplinary action against him, on the ground of delay alone, itself , deserves to be set aside and the charge-sheet itself was liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, Shri Yadav relied upon decisions of Apex Court in (1) State of MP vs. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1308 and (2) Baldev Singhal vs. State, 1999 (7) SLR 255. 4. Shri Yadav further urged that before passing punishment order, a copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, which was the material documents having been based and considered by disciplinary authority in holding him guilty and inflicting penalty upon him, and such action of disciplinary authority is in violation of Rule 16 (10) of CCA Rules. 5. Shri Yadav also contended that the inquiry officer has altered allegations under charge No. 4, which was beyond his authority and, the guilt found proved after altering allegation by inquiry officer is in violation of principle of natural justice. In support of his contention, Shri Yadav placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Birdhichand vs. JDA, 1992 (1) WLC 309. 6. Shri Yadav further urged that period of punishment inflicted upon petitioner has not been made specific as contemplated under Rule 14 of CCA Rules, which casts obligation upon disciplinary authority as contemplated under Rule 34 of CCA Rules, and the absence of specific mention of period of penalty inflicted while passing order of punishment (Annex-3), Rule 34 of CCA Rules has been violated by disciplinary authority. 7. Lastly, Shri Yadav contended that findings of guilt recorded by inquiry officer and affirmed by disciplinary authority in relation to charges found proved against petitioner are not supported by material on record, which is perverse and thereby penalty inflicted upon him on the basis of perverse findings stands vitiated. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition controverting facts referred to in writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition controverting facts referred to in writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate submitted that investigation was initially made by Anti-Corruption Department, in which several incriminating evidence was found against petitioner in support of imputed charges of possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income; and after receipt of report of Anti-Corruption Department, without any further delay, charge-sheet was issued on 25.02.1983; and even charges are based on documentary evidence which too were supplied to him, and even otherwise also on account of delay, no prejudice has been caused to him and that apart, he never raised any objection in course of inquiry and has throughout participated. It has also been submitted in the reply that inquiry report was received on 11.04.1986, before which Rule 16 (10) (i) (b) of CCA Rules was already amended and made effective from 21.06.1983, therefore, there was no provision existing to supply copy of inquiry report to the delinquent before passing order of penalty by disciplinary authority. It has also been averred that there was no alteration of charge by inquiry officer; on the contrary under statement of allegations, a reference was already made of Rule 19 (1) (a) of Conduct Rules, 1971, whereas at relevant time, when petitioner took loan from individuals, at that time corresponding Rule 8 of Rajasthan Govt. Servants and Pensioners Conduct Rules, 1950 ("Conduct Rules, 1950") was applicable as such only reference has been made of Rules, 8 of Conduct Rules, 1950, which is corresponding to Rule 19 of Conduct Rules, 1971, but the charge levelled against petitioner with regard to borrowing money from individuals, while he was posted as ADM, Udaipur remained the same as there was no alteration of charge by inquiry officer in the facts of present case. It has further been submitted that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by inquiry and affirmed by disciplinary authority even apart from it, if there is some evidence available to reasonably support findings of guilt, referred to above, recorded by both the authorities, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not like to interfere with on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence and technical rules of Evidence Act or Proof of fact of evidence defined therein are not applicable to disciplinary proceedings. In support of his contention, Shri Sharma relied upon decisions of Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1995 (5) SLR 778 SC and R.S. Saini vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (8) SCC 90 . 9. I have considered submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Charge-sheet served upon petitioner on 25.02.1983 was almost based on documentary evidence and facts were in complete knowledge of petitioner, and apart from it, Anti Corruption Department made investigation and after receipt of report from ACD, the same was processed and the charge-sheet was issued to petitioner in February, 1983, and further, in course of enquiry, petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice caused to him; and when he had participated in course of inquiry without raising any objection or protest, in my opinion, the delay in initiating and serving charge-sheet will not in any manner vitiate disciplinary action, even otherwise, looking to the nature of charges imputed against him. In both the decisions in State of MP vs. Bani Singh and Baldev Singh vs. State, (Supra) cited by petitioner, objection was raised immediately after the delinquent was served with charge-sheet and its validity was assailed before Court of law and the Apex Court after examining nature of charge which was only of supervisory negligence, came to the conclusion that delay has not been explained by the department. In the present case delay has been explained by the department for serving the charge-sheet at a later stage. The decisions cited (Supra) in this regard by petitioner do not support his contention. 11. There was no provision to supply copy of inquiry report before inflicting: penalty under Rule 16 (10) (i) (b) of CCA Rules which stood amended from 21.06.1983 and the inquiry report in instant matter was received by the authority on 11.04.1986 much after aforesaid amendment. In view of provisions existing as on the relevant date, no error was committed by disciplinary authority in passing order of penalty and the same was after due compliance of Rule 16 (10) of CCA Rules, as was existing on the date decision was taken by the authority on 112.1986. 12. As regards objection with regard to not making the period of penalty specific, in my opinion, there was no ambiguity in the nature of penalty inflicted. 12. As regards objection with regard to not making the period of penalty specific, in my opinion, there was no ambiguity in the nature of penalty inflicted. That apart, on objection raised by petitioner, the authority clarified position vide order dt.11.08.1987, in such situation, punishment inflicted is in consonance with Rule 14, and Rule 34 of CCA Rules, as referred to by petitioner, has no application in facts and circumstances of the case. 13. As regards contention with regard to alteration in charge No. 4, in all 5 charges were imputed against petitioner; charge No. 4 was in relation to borrowed money from individuals while he was posted as ADM, Udaipur, which is in violation of Conduct Rules, 1971, but since charge-sheet was served upon petitioner on 25.02.1983, Conduct Rules, 1971 was in operation as made effective from 04.08.1972, and reference was made to Rule 19 of Rules of 1971 but the fact is that during the period when petitioner borrowed money, corresponding Rule 8 of Conduct Rules, 1950 was applicable and it was misconduct on the part of Government employee in borrowing money from individual by exploiting his official position, Rule 8 of Conduct Rules, 1950 so also Rule 19 of Conduct Rules, 1971 are pari materia and, in my opinion, if inquiry officer has referred to Rule 8 of Conduct Rules, 1950, there is no ambiguity as at that time when petitioner borrowed money from individual by exploiting his official position, Rule 8 of Rules of 1950, was in operation, in such fact situation, it cannot be said to be alteration in charge imputed against him, mere reference has been made to corresponding Rules, which was in operation at the relevant time, in my opinion, neither there was any alteration of charge, nor was there any prejudice caused to him in that regard, nor was there any violation of Rule 16 (2) of CCA Rules. 14. The decision in Bridhi Chand vs. JDA, (Supra), was a case where inquiry officer re-drafted the charges of his own, which was certainly beyond his competence but in present case, there is no such alteration. Hence, this cited decision (Supra) has no application to facts of present case. 15. 14. The decision in Bridhi Chand vs. JDA, (Supra), was a case where inquiry officer re-drafted the charges of his own, which was certainly beyond his competence but in present case, there is no such alteration. Hence, this cited decision (Supra) has no application to facts of present case. 15. As regards the contention raised with regard to perversity in the findings recorded by disciplinary authority, in my opinion, petitioner has not been able to point out as to how far findings recorded by inquiring authority is either not supported by legal evidence or there is no material to support findings -in the absence of which merely raising objection without making any specific averments in this regard, in my opinion, will not be required to be interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 16. Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (Supra), has settled the law that technical rules of Evidence Act or proof of fact on evidence as defined therein are not applicable to disciplinary proceedings, and the Court or Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The same has also been reiterated in R.S. Saini vs. State of Punjab (Supra), wherein Apex Court held that if there is some evidence to reasonably support findings of inquiring authority, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not reverse the findings on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. I have pondered over and carefully scanned the findings recorded by inquiry authority in its report, so also the order passed by disciplinary authority affirmed by reviewing authority, I am satisfied that findings recorded in relation to charges No. 1, 2, 4, & 5, by holding petitioner guilty, are duly supported by material on record. 17. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.