JUDGMENT 1. - Heard at the admission stage. 2. The office has reported the Special Appeal as barred by 75 days. Misc. Application seeking condonation of delay was heard and was allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. 3. This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the legality of the order dated 10.4.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6359/2009 whereby the order of punishment dated 8.10.2004 as also the order passed in appeal on 29.9.2007 against the appellant in departmental enquiry, were upheld and writ petition was dismissed. 4. Brief facts giving rise to this Special Appeal are that the petitioner was Patwari in the State Government posted at Khidora Tehsil Barodi (Dholpur).On a news flashed in newspaper about crop of 150 kgs of 'Ganja' in the area of Khidora Tehsil Barodi (Dholpur), he was served with a charge-sheet for not informing about the said crop of 'Ganja' in his area. 5. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant had raised two issues.Firstly, that the documents required by him were not supplied to him during the enquiry and thus there was non observance of principles of natural justice; and secondly, the orders passed by the enquiry officer and upheld by the appellate authority, were discriminatory because other two officers i.e. Tehsildar and Inspector, who were equally responsible for the said act, had been completely exonerated of the charges whereas he was punished by way of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect.His job was to only maintain the record and 'girdawaris' are prepared in February, May and June.The crop was taken by the agriculturists in such a manner which could not have been seen. 6. He had prayed before the learned Single Judge to set aside the orders passed in departmental enquiry and upheld in appeal.According to him, his act can, at the most, be said to be a negligent one but cannot be termed as an act of misconduct. 6. He had prayed before the learned Single Judge to set aside the orders passed in departmental enquiry and upheld in appeal.According to him, his act can, at the most, be said to be a negligent one but cannot be termed as an act of misconduct. Learned Single Judge held that, prima facie, the Patwari is responsible to see what crop has been taken by the agriculturists in the area but he failed to report about the crop of 'Ganja' in his area.So far as the issue of unfairness of the enquiry on the ground of non supply of documents to the appellant is concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that the relevant documents demanded by the appellant had been supplied and the documents at item nos. 4 and 5 since were not concerned with the allegation and the document at item no.2 was to be obtained from the police station, therefore, it could not be said that there was unfairness while conducting the enquiry.Moreover, the appellant did not place before the court the copy of application to indicate as to what type of documents were demanded by him.It was also not placed before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it was found that in absence of the said application, it could not be said as to whether the documents had rightly been denied or not or whether the documents were relevant to the charges or not.The other argument regarding exoneration of Tehsildar and the Inspector was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that reporting of crop or seeing of crop in the area concerned was neither within the duties of Tehsildar nor Inspector.Appellant, being Patwari, was responsible for inspection and preparation of report as to what crop had been taken by the agriculturists and the duties of Tehsildar and Inspector have been taken note of by the enquiry officer as also by the Appellate Authority. 7. 7. So far as the argument of appellant with regard to his act being, at the most, of negligence and not of misconduct is concerned, the learned Single Judge has found that the appellant was responsible to inform about the crop taken by the agriculturists and if details of newspaper are looked into followed by the charge-sheet by the Department, it comes out that the crop of 'Ganja' was 150 kgs by four persons, which was not on a small patch of land but on a land of many bighas in different khasra nos. mentioned in the charge-sheet. 8. The appellant being Patwari was responsible to see that in the 'girdawari' correct information was given and verified.Agriculture of crop of such a huge quantity in different khasras, could not have escaped the attention of Patwari of the area and, therefore, this could not be said to be a simple case of negligence of the appellant. 9. The learned Single Judge also found that the punishment awarded by the enquiry officer and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, was not illegal and stopping of two grade increments with cumulative effect was also not disproportionate to the misconduct.Since the duty of the appellant was to check as to what type of crop was taken by the agriculturists and the failure of the same tantamount to misconduct. 10. We have considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and we concur with the findings of learned Single Judge.The crop of 'Ganja' of 150 kgs is a huge quantity and that too grown in different khasra nos. by four different agriculturists, which cannot be said to be a mere act of negligence.For the reasons mentioned herein-above, we do not find any case for interference.Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******