JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 25.01.2002, Annex.-5 passed by respondent No.1 imposing punishment of withholding four annual grade increments with cumulative effect, so also, orders Annex.-7 dated 27.01.2003 and Annex.-9 dated 05.02.2005 passed by appellate authority and reviewing authority respectively upholding the order of punishment made against the petitioner. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Accountant on 21.10.1984. In the year 1990, the petitioner was transferred to the Public Health Engineering Department and deputed in the office of Assistant Engineer, PHED Sub Division Makrana (District Nagaur). In the year 1995, a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was served upon the petitioner and, according to the allegation, charge was framed against the petitioner, in which, it is alleged that during the period commencing from 12.01.1990 to 22.10.1994, when the petitioner was working in the office of Assistant Engineer, PHED Sub Division Makrana, he did not check the subsidiary cash book and cash book of the Sub Division, so also, challan deposited in the Bank and due to said negligence on the part of the petitioner the revenue recovery clerk committed embezzlement of Rs. 8,76,532/-, therefore, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for negligence in discharge of his duties and assisting other delinquent to commit embezzlement. 3. The petitioner filed reply and submitted that he verbally informed the higher authorities that concerned Assistant Engineer was not permitting him to discharge his duties. Further, it is pointed out that the fact of not allowing the petitioner to check the cash-book and other accounts was well within the knowledge of the higher authorities but the reply of the petitioner was ignored and, after holding inquiry under Rule 16, the petitioner has been penalised for supervisory negligence only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the order of punishment argued that the inquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority both ignored the material fact of the case that the petitioner repeatedly asked higher authorities that the Assistant Engineer, PHED, Sub Division Makrana is not allowing him to perform his duties but the said plea taken by the petitioner is completely ignored, therefore, the order of punishment is illegal. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argtued that punishment imposed against the petitioner is not proportionate to the charge levelled against him, so also, it is discriminatory because the then Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer were also charge-sheeted along with the petitioner but penalty of withholding one grade increment is imposed against the Assistant Engineer whereas the petitioner who was working on the post of Junior Accountant has been inflicted penalty of withholding four grade increments with cumulative effect which is totally discriminatory because both were charge-sheeted for supervisory negligence. In this view of the matter, for the reason that different penalty has been inflicted for the same charge, the punishment awarded to the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that both the appellate authority and reviewing authority have also failed to consider the plea of the petitioner, therefore, orders passed by the appellate authority as well as reviewing authority deserve to be quashed and petitioner is entitled for exoneration from the charge of alleged misconduct. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that admittedly the petitioner was deputed by the Treasury & Accounts Department to check financial irregularities in the Public Health Engineering Department and, as per contention of the petitioner, he was not allowed by the Assistant Engineer to properly check the accounts etc. In my opinion, if the petitioner is raising such plea, then, obviously he was to inform in writing to the higher authorities of his parent department for alleged obstruction in discharge of his duties; but, as per plea of the petitioner, only verbal information was given by him to higher officials of the Public Health Engineering Department. In my opinion, if the petitioner is raising such plea, then, obviously he was to inform in writing to the higher authorities of his parent department for alleged obstruction in discharge of his duties; but, as per plea of the petitioner, only verbal information was given by him to higher officials of the Public Health Engineering Department. The conduct of the petitioner for taking such plea that for this serious obstruction in performance of his duties he only verbally informed the higher authorities clearly speaks that he was not only negligent to perform his duties but further he was negligent towards giving proper information in writing to his parent department authorities about the incident; meaning thereby, the fact of embezzlement committed by the revenue recovery clerk was well within the knowledge of the petitioner but for nearly four years he did not inform in writing to the higher authorities and being Junior Accountant he was deployed by the Accounts Department in the PHED Sub Division Makrana for the purpose of checking financial irregularities, if any, committed by the officials of the PHED. The petitioner has, therefore, seriously failed to perform his duties and his own admission that he was not allowed the check the accounts manifestly shows that he was having the knowledge of irregularities. In my considered opinion, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is lesser punishment because being the Junior Accountant deputed in the office of Assistant Engineer, PHED, Sub Division Makrana by the Treasury & Accounts Department, he committed serious misconduct. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty upon the petitioner. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed . *******