JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. The following order of the Court was passed by Ajit Singh, J: This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.9.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's SB Civil Writ Petition No.4451/2002. 2. The appellant while working as Junior Accountant in the office of Agriculture Marketing Board Rajasthan was served with a charge sheet alleging that she obtained from Smt. Uma Mathur, Upper Division Clerk file relating to grant of house building advance in favour of Hari Babu Kulshresthra also posted in the same office as Assistant Engineer on the pretext of calculating interest and thereafter she took out the original document of ownership of house mortgaged and replaced a photocopy of that document in the file. It was also alleged that the appellant passed the removed original document to Hari Babu Kulshresthra. Since the appellant denied the charge, regular departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was initiated vide order dated 14.8.1998. In the departmental enquiry witnesses Smt. Uma Mathur Upper Division Clerk, Deepak Sharma Upper Division Clerk and Hari Babu Kulshresthra were examined by the department whereas appellant examined witnesses MB Mathur and Babu Lal Soni in her defence. 3. The Enquiry Officer Yaswant Sinha in his enquiry report although held that original document relating to house mortgaged was removed from the file and was substituted by its photocopy but gave benefit of doubt to the appellant on the ground that it may not have been possible to substitute the original document by its photocopy within 15-20 minutes. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the finding of Enquiry Officer and was of the view that there was sufficient evidence against the appellant to prove the charge. 4. The Disciplinary Authority gave an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and held that the appellant had obtained the file from Uma Mathur Upper Division Clerk on the pretext of calculating interest and ledger posting and, thereafter illegally removed the original document of house mortgaged from it and gave the same to owner Hari Babu Kulshresthra. The Disciplinary Authority also took note of the fact that original document removed from the file was ultimately recovered from the possession of Hari Babu Kulshresthra on the same day. The Disciplinary Authority also took note of the fact that original document removed from the file was ultimately recovered from the possession of Hari Babu Kulshresthra on the same day. The Disciplinary Authority having regard to the evidence brought on record gave a definite finding that the appellant was guilty of pilfering the original document from the file and passing it on unauthorisedly to Hari Babu Kulshresthra. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore imposed a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect on the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed statutory appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 10th July, 2000. The appellant then filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.4451/2002, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. 5. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no evidence against her to prove the charge. It has also been argued that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the action taken against the appellant. 6. The record reveals that Uma Mathur was posted as Upper Division Clerk. She has categorically stated in the disciplinary proceedings that on 25th August, 1998 the appellant had taken the file of Hari Babu Kulshresthra from her on the pretext of calculating interest and when it was returned she discovered that original document of house mortgaged was missing. According to Uma Mathur, she immediately questioned the appellant whereupon it was found that original document of house mortgaged was substituted by its photocopy. Uma Mathur has further stated that on her making complaint to the Senior Officer, missing original document was recovered by Deepak Sharma from the possession of Hari Babu Kulshresthra where after it was again kept in the file. Deepak Sharma has supported the statement of Uma Mathur. No plausible explanation has been given by appellant how the original document of house mortgaged was missing when she returned the file to Uma Mathur after about 15 minutes. Therefore, there is ample evidence against the appellant regarding her involvement in the pilferage of document and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard to the charge, the penalty imposed on the appellant also cannot be held as disproportionate. 7. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.