Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-These two petitions being filed by one and same petitioner, involving common question of facts & law, at joint request of parties, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In both the petitions, petitioner has been inflicted with the penalty of removal from service in two separate disciplinary inquiries initiated against him. 3. Common Facts, in a narrow compass are that petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe, was appointed as LDC on 20.01.1970 by Collector, Barmer, where he was declared surplus on 25.08.1970 and absorbed in Department of Border Home Guards vide order dated 26.08.1970 and thereafter transferred to Collectorate Alwar in 1973, and on his request was transferred to Jaipur in 1974 and was confirmed as LDC vide order dated 30.08.1983. 4. Facts giving rise to each of petitions, in brief , are stated thus- CWP 2683/1993 A charge-sheet (Annexure-1) dated 111.1988 under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, ("CCA Rules") for his delinquency allegedly committed during his posting as LDC under Executive Magistrate, Kotputli at Shahpura during the period from 01.03.1982 to 10.07.1984 and whereby three charges were imputed against him. Allegation under first charge was that petitioner thrice availed encashment by surrender of 30 days PL instead of one time available in one block year i.e. 1982-1984. Second charge was that in his service book he interpolated in block year from 1982-1984 to "1978-1980". Third charge was that for punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect inflected upon him vide order dated 06.07.1979, by interpolation in service record, petitioner altered the penalty from "with cumulative" to "without cumulative" and in Hindi, "Sanchai" was made "Asanchai" by petitioner. 5. Petitioner submitted reply dated 07.01.1989 (Annexure-2) to the charge-sheet (Annexure-1) which was not accepted by disciplinary authority and, therefore, inquiry officer was appointed to examine charges imputed against him. In regular inquiry, he himself admitted the charges but made request that he was unaware of the same and accepted that he would not repeat such mistake in future, as is evident from his letter dated 27.08.1991 (Annexure-5) submitted to disciplinary authority. In regular inquiry, he himself admitted the charges but made request that he was unaware of the same and accepted that he would not repeat such mistake in future, as is evident from his letter dated 27.08.1991 (Annexure-5) submitted to disciplinary authority. After regular inquiry, inquiry officer submitted his report while recording finding of guilt against petitioner, and sent it alongwith record of inquiry to disciplinary authority -a copy of inquiry report was furnished to petitioner, to which he confessed in reply (Annexure-5) and pleaded that mistake committed by him is bona fide and he would not repeat the same in future. After taking into consideration material on record of inquiry, disciplinary authority concurred with finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer; so also after taking note of letter of his confession (Ann. 5) and keeping in view nature of charges which finally stood proved against him, the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 03.09.1991 (Annexure-6), against which petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules; but the appellate authority, after taking note of submissions and taking into consideration record of inquiry, upheld finding of guilt by converting penalty of "dismissal" to "removal" from service vide order dated 20.03.1993 (Annexure-8) so that he may not be disqualified for future employment elsewehere. Hence, this petition. CWP 3669/1999 6. Another charge-sheet (Annexure-1) dt.13.06.1989 under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, ("CCA Rules") for his delinquency allegedly committed during his posting as LDC under Executive Magistrate, Shahpura in Tehsil Office Jamwaramgarh during the period from 15.07.1985 to 15.05.1986 and whereby two charges were imputed against him. Allegation under first charge was that petitioner twice availed encashment by surrender of 30 days PL instead of one time encashment of 30 days PL in one block year of 1984-1986. Second charge was that in collusion with Shri Rohitash Nazir, petitioner made interpolation in an entry at page 14 of service book No. 2 and changed block year 1984-1986 to "1982-1984" and thereby he committed misconduct by putting loss to public exchequer for his personal gain by getting twice encashment of leave in one block year by tampering with public record. 7. Petitioner submitted reply dated 29.08.1991 (Annexure-2) to the charge-sheet (Ann.1) which was not accepted by disciplinary authority and, therefore, inquiry officer was appointed to examine charges imputed against him. 7. Petitioner submitted reply dated 29.08.1991 (Annexure-2) to the charge-sheet (Ann.1) which was not accepted by disciplinary authority and, therefore, inquiry officer was appointed to examine charges imputed against him. In regular inquiry, he himself admitted to have accepted encashment of 30 days PL twice but his explanation was that he was unaware of such provision and that apart, he deposited amount of encashment in lieu of surrender of 30 days PL in the treasury and however denied to have made interpolation in service record as alleged in second charge. After regular inquiry, inquiry officer submitted his report dated 21.03.1991 which was served upon petitioner vide letter dated 03.08.1991 (Annexure-4) while recording findings of guilt against petitioner, and sent it alongwith record of inquiry to disciplinary authority. After taking into consideration material on record of inquiry, disciplinary authority concurred with finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer; and keeping in view nature of charges which finally stood proved against him, the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 03.09.1991 (Annexure-5), against which petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules; but the appellate authority, after taking note of submission and taking into consideration record of inquiry concurred with finding of guilt recorded against him, has converted penalty of "dismissal" to "removal" from service vide order dated 20.03.1993 (Annexure-7) so that he may not be disqualified for future employment elsewhere. Petitioner filed CWP No. 2684/1993 before this Court, which was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file review petition. Petitioner filed review petition dated 13.04.1994 (Annexure-9) which was rejected vide order dated 26.05.1999 (Annexure-10). Hence this petition. 8. Petitioner filed CWP No. 2684/1993 before this Court, which was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file review petition. Petitioner filed review petition dated 13.04.1994 (Annexure-9) which was rejected vide order dated 26.05.1999 (Annexure-10). Hence this petition. 8. Shri S.P. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner urged that petitioner was completely ignorant of the fact that in one block year 1982-1984 and 1984-1986, he was only once entitled to claim encashment in lieu of surrender of 30 days PL and was not aware of any provisions under RSR which restricts to claim encashment in lieu of surrender of 30 days PL once; and under bona fide belief , he moved applications and since PLs applied for were sanctioned by competent authority, payment of encashment was duly acknowledged and that apart, immediately upon objection being raised by the Audit, excess amount drawn on account of encashment in lieu of surrender of leave in question was deposited in the Treasury and, therefore, it was bona fide act on his part and he had no bad intention or deliberate act, which cannot be said to be misconduct on his part. 9. As regards second charge, Shri S.P. Sharma contended that there was no occasion for petitioner to tamper with entries in service record for change in block year because that could not have given any benefit to him and as a result of mala fide action of respondent No. 4, such charges were imputed against him. As regards charge No. 3, Shri S.P. Sharma submitted that no benefit was extended to him for converting penalty from "with" to "without" cumulative effect as is evident from xerox copy of service book (Ann. 3), and according to him, petitioner has been victimized by respondent No. 4 who held inquiry only for the reason that he is member of Scheduled Tribe and the Officer wanted to get rid of him. 10. 3), and according to him, petitioner has been victimized by respondent No. 4 who held inquiry only for the reason that he is member of Scheduled Tribe and the Officer wanted to get rid of him. 10. Shri Sharma further urged that two standards were adopted by respondents for inflicting penalty upon two similarly situated delinquents - one Sultan Singh who was working as UDC, had also taken benefit of encashment of surrender of 30 days PL more than once in one block year but initially he too was dismissed from service but appellate authority while holding him guilty, reduced penalty of dismissal from service to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, while in case of present petitioner, appellate authority converted penalty from "dismissal" to "removal" from service, but ultimately he remain unemployed even by such conversion, so action of respondents is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. In this regard, the Counsel relied upon decisions in Babulal vs. State, 2000 (3) RLR 416 and Bhagatram vs. State of Him.Pra., 1983 (2) SCC 442 . 11. Lastly Shri S.P. Sharma urged that even if charges imputed against petitioner are taken at its face value and he is held guilty, punishment of removal from service inflicted by appellate authority upon him is shockingly disproportionate, which requires interference by this Court in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and in support of his contention, reliance has been upon decisions of Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749 and S.K. Giri vs. Home Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs, 1995 (Supp) (3) SCC 519. 12. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and has submitted that he took encashment of surrender of 30 days PL thrice in block year 1982-1984 and twice in block year 1984-1986, and only upon objection raised by the Audit, the accepted amount was deposited by petitioner and only to save himself , he got block years changed in service book so that by change of block years, he could get benefit of encashment of surrender of 30 days PL thrice and twice as the case may be. Shri B.K. Sharma Dy. Shri B.K. Sharma Dy. Government Advocate submitted that merely because excess amount has been subsequently deposited by him, will not absolve him from misconduct committed and it could not find favour for the reason that during block year 1979-1980, he was not posted at Kotputli and apart from it, he got his punishment changed in service book from "with" to "without" cumulative effect by interpolating "Sanchai" to "Asanchai", which resulted in giving effect to the punishment inflicted. Shri B.K. Sharma further contended that such an act of delinquency on the part of petitioner was intentional and deliberate by interpolating entries in service record and which was made for his own benefit and for such serious charges, he was served with charge-sheet and in course of inquiry, rather petitioner admitted his guilt with regard to over-writing in service record so also for other charges; and after taking note of record of inquiry, he was held guilty by disciplinary authority and rightly upheld by appellate authority, but taking lenient view in the matter converted the penalty which may not debar him from seeking employment elsewhere. Counsel has further submitted that ample opportunity was afforded to petitioner at all stages in course of inquiry so also before punishing him by competent authority, but contrarily, petitioner conceded and accepted his guilt in reply (Ann. 5). 13. As regards contention of petitioner with regard to leniency in favour of Sultan Singh for infliction of penalty, Counsel contended that there was only one charge against Sultan Singh with regard to accepting claim of encashment of surrender of 30 days PL in one block year for more than once, while against present petitioner, there are other charges of interpolation in entry of service record for his own benefit, which were serious charges rather found proved against him as such two delinquents cannot be equated or compared for purposes of infliction of penalty. 14. I have considered rival contentions and perused material on record. 14. I have considered rival contentions and perused material on record. Petitioner has not come out with a case that there was any illegality in procedure adopted by respondents in holding inquiry against him; and on the contrary, it is his own case that procedure as provided in CCA Rules, have been followed, and in course of inquiry, ample opportunity was afforded to him as contemplated in CCA Rules, inasmuch as compliance of principles of natural justice has been followed and thereafter the punishment has been inflicted. 15. In fact Shri S.P. Sharma, has basically challenged validity of charges, itself , imputed against petitioner on the premises that his act was not intentional, but was as a result of inadvertence and having no knowledge about procedure for agant of encashment of surrender leave, applications were submitted and on acceptance by competent authority payment was made. For other charges also, likewise submissions have been made. Be that as it may, this fact cannot be ignored that grant of encashment of surrender leave can be claimed only once in one block year; rather petitioner being employed in the department is supposed to have knowledge of leave rules, so presumption has to be drawn that he was aware of leave rules and procedure applicable for the purposes and this fact was never disclosed by him in application submitted that earlier also encashment of surrender leave has been availed of by him in the relevant block year in question which clearly shows that it was intentional act on the part of petitioner in submitting application one after the other; and plea of ignorance as claimed is without any substance. 16. As regards arguments relating to other charges are concerned, I am not satisfied with explanation submitted on behalf of petitioner that by making change in service record, no benefit has been extended to him. For charge No. 2, by change of block year, certainly it was for his own benefit, amount of encashment of surrender of 30 days PL was accepted by him; and similarly by change of penalty from "with" to "without" cumulative effect, he became entitled to increments after expiry of period of penalty inflicted upon him, to which he was otherwise not entitled for, and once he accepted guilt as is evident from his own application (Ann. 5), wherein he submitted that he would not repeat such mistake in future, in my opinion, no error was committed in present facts situation by disciplinary authority in taking decision and upholding guilt recorded by inquiry officer in his report. More so once finding has been recorded in holding petitioner guilty which is supported by legal evidence on record, I find no justification to interfere with the same. 17. Contention with regard to disparity in imposition of penalty upon Sultan Singh UDC qua petitioner, is of no substance. In case of Sultan Singh, there was only one charge that he took benefit of encashment of surrender of 30 days PL more than once in a block year and that was solitary charge imputed against him while against petitioner there were other charges also imputed against him with regard to making changes in entries of service record and which was his deliberate act for his own benefit. In such facts situation, petitioner in no manner can be said to a person similarly situated to Sultan Singh, and the Judgment on which petitioner placed reliance, in Babulal vs. State (Supra) has no application. 18. Last submission made on behalf of petitioner that penalty inflicted upon him is shockingly disproportionate to the charges imputed, in my opinion, is of no substance. It is true that Apex Court in Bhagat Ram vs. State of Him.Pra. (Supra), recognized interference in quantum of punishment, and held that punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct and the penalty disproportionate to the charges would be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Similarly in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 , Apex Court held that the Court can interfere with order of punishment on various grounds and one of those grounds is where the penalty is arbitrary and whimsical. 19. Similarly in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 , Apex Court held that the Court can interfere with order of punishment on various grounds and one of those grounds is where the penalty is arbitrary and whimsical. 19. So far as present case is concerned, I am satisfied that in view nature of charges imputed against petitioner of changing entries in service record for his own benefit and contrarily putting financial loss to public exchequer as a consequence thereof and accepting encashment of surrender of 30 days PL thrice in one block year and twice in another block year by submitting applications one after the other and not disclosing this fact to the authority that he had already availed of such benefit and that apart, he was already inflicted with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect but he interpolated and changed from "with" to "without" cumulative effect, in entries of service record, therefore, infliction of penalty is justified and commensurate with gravity of charges which were finally proved against him and I am not inclined to interfere in the quantum of punishment in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 20. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to casts.