JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The challenge in this intra-court appeal is the order of Single Bench dated 16th May, 2012, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant, against order dated 1st February, 2011 imposing penalty of reduction in rank (degrade) against the appellant, after due enquiry, has been dismissed.4. Briefly stated, the facts of the appeal are that petitioner preferred a writ petition before Single Bench for quashing whole departmental proceedings, which culminated in the order dated 1st February, 2011, whereby penalty order was passed against him, after holding enquiry in accordance with the rules. The petitioner also prayed that respondents be directed to release all consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum.5. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). There were two charges against the petitioner. The first charge, was in respect of regularisation of land by Samjhota Samiti at the rate lower than the rate prevalent i.e. rate as per report of Sub-Registrar. The second charge, was in respect of land sought to be regularised, was subject matter of litigation followed by judgment in favour of Municipality. Charge No.1 was partly proved. Charge No.2 was fully proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer and also the representation of the petitioner, passed penalty order dated 1st February, 2011 awarding penalty of reduction in rank - degrade.6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that order of Samjhota Samiti regarding regularisation of land was set aside and was not acted upon. He also submitted that the petitioner was having no authority to put a note for Samjhota Samiti about low rate than the rate prevalent in respect of charge No.1 and also in respect of judgment in favour of Municipality relating to land connected with charge No.2 was levelled, therefore, enquiry officer wrongly found the charges proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority also committed an illegality in passing impugned order of penalty and learned Single Judge wrongly dismissed the writ petition.7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the order of Single Bench as well as penalty order passed by disciplinary authority.8. The disciplinary authority also committed an illegality in passing impugned order of penalty and learned Single Judge wrongly dismissed the writ petition.7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the order of Single Bench as well as penalty order passed by disciplinary authority.8. Learned Single Judge considered the matter in detail and by a reasoned and speaking order has dismissed the writ petition. Charge No.1 against the petitioner was in respect of regularisation of land by Samjhota Samiti to which he was Member Secretary. The rate of land was Rs. 1400/- per Sq. Yd. as per report of Sub-Registrar, whereas the land in question was regularised by the Samjhota Samiti at the rate of Rs. 750/- per Sq. Yd. i.e. less than the DLC rate. The petitioner being the Member Secretary cannot be said to be a dummy Member of the committee. He was having knowledge about rate of land as Rs. 1400/- per Sq. Yd. Even if, the order of Samjhota Samiti was ultimately set aside or was not acted upon, the same cannot be a ground to defend the case by the petitioner. It was the duty of the petitioner, being a Member Secretary of the committee, to apprise the members of the committee the prevalent rate of the land.9. So far as, second charge is concerned, the petitioner did not inform the committee that there was a litigation in respect of disputed land and judgment has been passed in favour of Municipality holding Udaram to be reckoned trespasser. The petitioner did not take any action for eviction of the trespasser and did not inform the committee about decision of the court in favour of the Municipality. He remained silent in the committee and did not inform about these facts. These were the questions of facts. Enquiry officer recorded a finding of fact, which was accepted by disciplinary authority. Learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the finding of fact, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the same in this intra-court appeal.10. The intra-court appeal is meritless and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 9820/2012 also stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******