Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 210.1992 (Annexure 12) of respondent No. 2, whereby in an inquiry under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules"), he has been punished with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, which too was affirmed by appellate authority vide order dated 17.5.1994 (Annexure 15). 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner, who was appointed in the RPS cadre after regular selection through RPSC in the year 1982 was confirmed in the year 1984. While he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Srikaranpur (Sriganga Nagar) on 10.5.1986, FIR No. 53/86 (Annexure 2) was lodged by him, wherein he arrested one Mahadev Prasad Gupta and several other persons, who were causing wrongful obstruction during the course of police investigation. M.P. Gupta also lodged FIR No. 17/89 (Annexure 3) on 3.1989 at P.S. Kesrisingh Pura alleging illegal arrest and wrong use of force by the petitioner on 10.5.1986. The matter was investigated by CID (CB), which gave final report dated 17.1.1991 (Annexure 5), for the incident of 10.5.1986, S.D.M. Srikaranpur made preliminary inquiry in which petitioner was also called, and after making inquiry, the SDM submitted his report to the State Government, and after taking note of the same, a charge-sheet (Annexure 8) was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules on 10.1988, and when no reply was given by petitioner, final opportunity was granted vide letter dated 33.1990 (Annexure 10), calling upon him to submit his reply and further opportunity of personal hearing was granted for which he may appear before the authority within 15 days on any working day, itself . The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure 9) to the charge-sheet and after taking note of all of his submission made in reply (Annexure 9), disciplinary authority vide its order dated 210.1992 (Annexure 12) held him guilty of both the charges and punished him with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, and against aforesaid penalty order (Annexure 12), the petitioner preferred appeal (Annexure 14), which was also rejected vide order (Annexure 15) dated 17.5.1994 by appellate authority. Hence this writ petition. 3. Hence this writ petition. 3. Shri M.M. Mehrish, Counsel for petitioner has urged that the petitioner sought personal hearing as required under Rule 17 of CCA Rules and once personal hearing was sought by petitioner, the authority was under obligation to afford him such hearing, and this inaction on the part of respondents has caused prejudice to him. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Harlal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 WLR (sic) 661 (Raj). 4. Shri Mehrish has further urged that in criminal case registered under Sections 147, 332, 353, 336 and 307, IPC, the petitioner has been acquitted by competent Court of jurisdiction vide Judgment dated 15.20002, therefore, the very finding recorded by respondents holding him guilty of the charges, in present facts situation, stands vitiated. 5. Shri Mehrish further submitted that copy of preliminary inquiry report of the SDM was not supplied to the petitioner, which was made to be basis for initiating disciplinary inquiry under Rule 17 of CCA Rules, which has also caused prejudice to him in making proper explanation to the charge-sheet before disciplinary authority, and the order of disciplinary authority is virtually non-speaking order, as it does not disclose material, on the basis of which the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges. 6. So far as order of appellate authority is concerned, Shri Mehrish, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules has not been complied with and all objections pointed out by him in appeal were not properly considered by appellate authority, rather failed to examine it, which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice; and despite the petitioner appeared before appellate authority in person, his submissions pointing out ambiguity in the finding recorded by disciplinary authority, were not considered, and the order of appellate authority for such reason is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the order of appellate authority is not in consonance with Rule 30(2) of the CCA Rules. 7. The respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents has urged that the petitioner was one of senior responsible officers working as Deputy Supdt. 7. The respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents has urged that the petitioner was one of senior responsible officers working as Deputy Supdt. of Police Srikaranpur on 10.5.1986 and during investigation, started beating Mahadev Prasad Gupta by stick and hurling unparliamentary language, and thereafter, told his subordinate to load gun and forcibly brought Shri Mahadev Prasad in a jeep to police station, where on account of such incident, local residents surrounded police station and started pelting stones there, and such a conduct on the part of petitioner outraged the mob gathering at police station. Shri Sharma submitted that fateful incident was as a result of conduct on the part of petitioner and which has shaken image of police department and for such misconduct committed, preliminary inquiry was got conducted through SDM Srikaranpur and upon his report, the petitioner was served with charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, wherein when he failed to submit his reply, he was finally called upon to submit reply, and was afforded with full opportunity of hearing rather he was called upon to personally appear before the authority on any working day, and that apart, the submission made by him, was examined by disciplinary authority after affording due personal hearing to him, as well, and only thereafter, he has been held guilty of both the charges and looking to his service career, he has been punished with minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments, without cumulative effect vide order dated 210.1992 (Annexure 12). Shri Sharma also urged that the appeal preferred by petitioner was also examined by appellate authority after taking all of his submissions made into consideration, and apart from it, he was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing and the appellate authority passed order dated 17.5.1994 (Annexure 15), considering material on record so also submissions made by petitioner during the course of personal hearing before appellate authority and the authority has made due compliance of Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules while passing order dated 17.5.1994 (Annexure 15). 8. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. 8. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. As regards first contention raised by Shri Mehrish that since personal hearing was not afforded to petitioner in view of Rule 17(c) of CCA Rules, it vitiates the very decision of disciplinary authority, but from the material on record, it is clear that the authority vide its letter dated 33.1990 (Annexure 10) gave last opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply and was also granted opportunity to appear in person before the authority within 15 days on any working day, and in compliance thereof , the petitioner appeared before the authority, but the objection raised by him is that the Director General of Police was his disciplinary authority but when he appeared in person, he was asked by the authority to make his oral submissions before Inspector General of Police (I) but that could not be said to be in due compliance under Rule 17(c) of CCA Rules. As per Rule 17(c) of CCA Rules it is for the disciplinary authority to take its own decision as to whether personal hearing to the delinquent is required or not, but it cannot be said that requirement of affording personal hearing is to be followed mandatorily in all cases whenever request is made. So far as present case is concerned, opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to petitioner, and it is not his case that oral submissions which he has made even before IGP (I) have not been considered or examined or taken note of by the disciplinary authority while taking its final decision to inflict minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. I am of the opinion that opportunity of personal hearing under Rule 17(c) of CCA Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is for the disciplinary authority to examine in the facts of each case and that apart, in the present case, ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and all of his submissions made either in reply or before the authority concerned, have been examined and considered by disciplinary authority while taking impugned decision of inflicting minor penalty and making his oral submissions before IGP (I) in no manner has caused any prejudice to him. The Judgment in Harlal vs. State (Supra) has no application in the facts of present case. 10. The Judgment in Harlal vs. State (Supra) has no application in the facts of present case. 10. As regards next submissions made by Shri Mehrish that once the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case instituted against him by competent Court of jurisdiction vide Judgment dated 15.2002, the finding recorded by disciplinary authority stands vitiated, suffice it to say that scope of disciplinary inquiry so also of inquiry in criminal case stands on different footing. In criminal case, charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in disciplinary inquiry, the delinquent can be held guilty on the basis of preponderance of probabilities available on record. In my opinion, acquittal passed in favour of petitioner in criminal case instituted against him vide Judgment dated 15.2002, will not rescue him from finding, which has been recorded in disciplinary inquiry against him on the basis of which he has been held guilty under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, and hence the contention raised by the petitioner has no force. 11. As regards last submission made by Shri Mehrish that copy of preliminary inquiry report of SDM Srikaranpur, which was made to be basis by the State Government for issuing charge-sheet (Annexure 8) was not supplied to him, suffice it to say that investigation or inquiry at preliminary stage was made for satisfaction of the administrative authority and once the authority was satisfied on the basis of preliminary inquiry report, disciplinary inquiry was initiated by serving charge-sheet upon the delinquent under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, and in the present case, petitioner was also called upon in the preliminary inquiry conducted by SDM Srikaranpur, so in my opinion, neither any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner nor there was any occasion for disciplinary authority to supply preliminary inquiry report to him. 12. So far as findings recorded by appellate and disciplinary authority are concerned. I have examined the orders dated 17.5.1994 (Annexure 15) and dated 210.1992 (Annexure 12). Both the authorities have examined in details and recorded their findings duly supported by cogent material on record, and both the authorities have passed impugned orders after due application of mind so also in compliance of principles of natural justice and rules of procedure under CCA Rules. I find no error in both the orders of disciplinary and appellate authorities while taking final decision for inflicting minor penalty upon the petitioner. I find no error in both the orders of disciplinary and appellate authorities while taking final decision for inflicting minor penalty upon the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the findings recorded in the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 13. Consequently the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with stay petition No. 3777/94. No order