JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The matter was heard finally on 07.09.2012 and judgment was reserved. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant in the present intra-Court appeal was that the Superintendent of Police has no power under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 to impose penalty of removal or dismissal from service, therefore, impugned order of penalty of removal or dismissal from service of appellant, passed by the Superintendent of Police, is illegal and beyond jurisdiction and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Full Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.331/1995- Prem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , and other two connected matters, heard the same question and vide order dated 20.09.2012, answered the same in affirmative holding that Superintendent of Police was competent to pass an order imposing penalty of removal or dismissal from service. Following is the question and answer, referred to and answered by the Full Bench:- "Question:- Whether in view of the note (ii) below Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, Superintendent of Police is competent to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal specified respectively in clauses (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14 thereof? Answer:- The question is answered in affirmative and it is held that in view of the Note (i) below Rule 15 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, authority who is empowered to make appointment to a Service is competent to inflict any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 and as per Note (ii) to Rule 15 (1) of Rules of 1958 power could be delegated by the State Government or Head of the Department to any authority subordinate thereto, but the State Government or Head of Department, as the case may be, shall not empower under Note (ii) of Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1958 any authority meaning thereby other authority than appointing authority as mentioned in Note (i) of Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958 to impose penalties specified in clauses (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958. The Superintendent of Police/Commandant or officer of equivalent rank being authority empowered to make appointment to a Service is competent to impose penalties specified in clauses (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958." 5. Since the main question involved in the present intra-Court appeal had already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court against the appellant, therefore, matter was again listed on 30.10.2012 in the category of "to be mentioned" cases. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that there are other points involved in the present intra-Court appeal, which may also be heard and considered. He submitted that impugned order was contrary to the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that a copy of enquiry report was not supplied to him. He further submitted that looking to the nature of charges framed against the appellant, penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate. 7. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that looking to the allegations levelled against the appellant in the Memorandum of Charges, it is clear that they were of serious nature. The allegations relate to theft and indiscipline. Appellant was in police service, where both the allegations cannot be tolerated. He submitted that charges were found to be proved against the appellant, which have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Single Bench. The scope to interfere in the intra-Court appeal is very limited. No ground is made out so as to interfere in the order passed by the Single Bench. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the intra-Court appeal and the same may be dismissed. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for appellant has not disputed that charges were found to be proved against the appellant by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 13.01.1989, imposing penalty of discharge from service, against which the appellant preferred departmental appeal, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.01.1990. The allegations in the charge-sheet against the appellant relate to factual aspects. Allegations of theft and indiscipline were found to be proved and the learned counsel for appellant was unable to show any illegality or perversity in the finding. 10. The allegations in the charge-sheet against the appellant relate to factual aspects. Allegations of theft and indiscipline were found to be proved and the learned counsel for appellant was unable to show any illegality or perversity in the finding. 10. The Single Bench, in our view, has rightly not interferred in the finding of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer, accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Learned Single Judge has examined the matter, in detail, and dismissed the writ petition. Enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Orders of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are well reasoned and speaking orders. The reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for removal of the appellant from service, are absolutely legal and justified, which have not been interferred with by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Single Bench. All the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for appellant, were advanced and considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority also. In these circumstances, we find no force in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant. 11. The intra-Court appeal is bereft of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******