JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against enquiry report dated 27.08.2010 (Annexure-2) holding the petitioner guilty of charges, order dated 07.02.2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment with future effect and order dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure-3) passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of punishment. 2. The petitioner was posted as Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kotadi, District Bhilwara and was having additional charge of Najarat Branch during the period 19.10.2005 to 05.12.2007; a charge-sheet (Annexure-5) dated 07.12.2007 was issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules') for not preparing the arrear bill of one Hanuman Sutrakar and for indiscipline and serious misconduct while talking with the Presiding Officer i.e. Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara. 3. The petitioner contested the charges. 4. The enquiry officer vide his enquiry report dated 27.08.2010 came to the conclusion that both the charges were proved against the petitioner-Delinquent Officer; where after, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by his order dated 07.02.2012 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, ordered for imposition of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect vide Annexure-1. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed departmental appeal, which was considered by the Appellate Committee and by order dated 21.12.2012 the appeal was dismissed having no force. 6. The present writ petition has been filed on 10.08.2015 i.e. after a passage of about two years and nine months from the date the appellate order was passed seeking to question the enquiry report, the order imposing punishment and the appellate order. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the punishment imposed is stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect, the same gives a continuous cause of action to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed is delayed. 8. Reliance was placed on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1996 SC 669 (1) , Ex. Sep. Sri Chand v. Union of India & Ors. : WP(C) No.148/2012 decided on 09.01.2012 by the Delhi High Court, Union of India & Ors. 8. Reliance was placed on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1996 SC 669 (1) , Ex. Sep. Sri Chand v. Union of India & Ors. : WP(C) No.148/2012 decided on 09.01.2012 by the Delhi High Court, Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh : Civil Appeal No.5151-5152 of 2008 decided on 13.08.2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 2007 SC 1330. 9. It was further submitted that the enquiry report, the order imposing punishment and the appellate order deserve to be set aside as they were passed without considering the factual matrix of the relevant situation; there was no dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner as alleged and the charge-sheet is a product of ego of the officer; the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were much influenced by the fact that petitioner misbehaved with a senior officer without analysing the genesis which led to the alleged behaviour; it was further submitted that the nature of allegation made in the charge-sheet does not even call for invoking provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules and, consequently, imposition of major penalty against the petitioner in the circumstances of the case is totally uncalled for and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 11. At the outset it may be noticed that petitioner has not indicated a word in the writ petition as to what prevented him from challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority within reasonable time of passing of the orders; challenging the orders after more than two years and eight months after the order was passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be a reasonable period and clearly appears to be an after thought, whereby, now the petitioner has chosen to question the legality and validity of the orders impugned. 12. 12. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner based on the claim that as major penalty has been imposed, the same would give a continuous cause of action to the petitioner is wholly baseless; the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard have no application to the facts of the present case. 13. While the judgment in the case of M.R. Gupta (supra) the dispute pertained to fixation of initial pay, which was claimed to be not in accordance with the Rules, the judgments in the case of Ex. Sep. Sri Chand (supra), Tarsem Singh (supra) and Shiv Dass (supra) pertained to claim of pension/disability pension. 14. The plea raised by the petitioner regarding continuous cause of action has no substance, inasmuch as, the effect of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority was immediate and gave a cause of action to the petitioner and merely because the effect of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority would continue during petitioner's entire service tenure, it cannot be said that the cause of action qua the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority would be a recurring cause of action so as to ignore the issue pertaining to delay and laches on part of the petitioner. 15. The writ petition filed by the petitioner does not deserve any consideration on account of unexplained delay and laches involved in approaching this Court. 16. However, having considered the petition filed by the petitioner on merits as well, there is absolutely no substance in the writ petition. The enquiry officer, based on the evidence available on record, came to a specific conclusion that petitioner was guilty of both the charges levelled against him; the Disciplinary Authority after hearing the petitioner concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment and the matter was taken up in appeal, the Appellate Committee came to the following conclusion:- "I have pondered the entire evidence available. Shri Umashankar Vyas (AW-5) in quite specific terms stated that the delinquent employee was not at all responding with decency and decorum required to be maintained while in conversation on telephone. Shri Umashankar Vyas (AW-5) in quite specific terms stated that the delinquent employee was not at all responding with decency and decorum required to be maintained while in conversation on telephone. The relevant portion of the statement made by AW-5 reads as under:- " fnukad 26-11-2007 dks vf/koDrkx.k us dk;Z LFkfxr dj j[kk Fkk] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds ikl rqyukRed :i ls vf/kd le; miyC/k Fkk] ml fnu Jh lq=dkj us blh ekeys ds laca/k esa ,d vkosnu izn'kZ&9 izLrqr dj bls dksVM+h fHktokus dk vuqjks/k fd;k] i=kpkj esa vuko';d le; o izfdz;k dk viO;; ugha gks blfy;s VsfyQksu ij nksigj ds 12-15 cts Jh ik.M~;k ls esjs }kjk VsfyQksu in lEidZ fd;k rks mUgksaus tkfgj fd;k fd esjs vkils dksbZ dk;Z ugha gSA esjs }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd vki guqeku lq=dkj dk ,sfj;j fcy cukus esa okafNr :fp ysos rFkk HkhyokM+k vkus ij lEidZ djus dks Hkh dgk rks Jh ik.M~;k us dgk fd esjs dks vkils dksbZ dke ugha gS vkSj esjs }kjk vkils lEidZ djus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha Fkh] vkidks dke Fkk o vkidh xjt Fkh rks vkidks lEidZ djuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk Jh lq=dkj dk fcy cukus ls badkj dj fn;kA Jh ik.M~;k dks f'k"Vrk ls ckr djus o O;ogkj Bhd j[kus ds fy, le>k;k rks tkfgj fd;k fd esjs rks Jh jkds'k dqekj th 'kekZ ,dek= vf/kdkjh gS ckfd fdlh dks eSa vf/kdkjh ugha le>rk] eq>s igys gh HkhyokM+k ls dksVM+h fHktok fn;k x;k gS vkSj vkxs Hkh tkus dks rS;kj gSa] esjk O;ogkj rks ,slk gh jgsxkA bl izdkj deZpkjh us vuq'kklughurk o xSj ftEesnkjkuk O;ogkj rFkk vf'k"Vrk dk O;ogkj fd;k tks fuf'pr :i ls v'kksHkuh; FkkA bl VsfyQksfud okrkZ ds nkSjku esjs LVsuksxzkQj Jh vfuy mik/;k;] jhMj Jh fot;'kadj rFkk guqeku lq=dkj p0Js0 deZpkjh psacj esa ikl esa gh [kM+s Fks tks esjs }kjk dh xbZ le>kbZ'k ls o tks okrkZyki gks jgk Fkk] mlls og yksx ;g le> pqds Fks fd Jh ik.M~;k }kjk vf'k"Vrk o v'kksHkuh; O;ogkj o okrkZyki fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk VsfyQksu j[kus ds ckn mUgksaus Hkh bl ckjs esa vk'p;Z o fpark trkbZ rFkk blls fuf'pr :i ls deZpkfj;ksa esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dh izfr"Bk [kjkc gqbZ] vuq'kklughurk o buloksfMZus'ku dks cy feykA " A bare reading of the statement given by Shri Umashankar Vyas clearly depicts ill behaviour of the delinquent with a Judicial Officer. The statement given by AW-5 possess full confidence and I do not find any reason to disbelieve him. So far as the question of mensrea is concerned, suffice to mention that in disciplinary proceedings the issue required examination is the conduct of an employee. Mensrea and motives are not of much relevance. I am also satisfied that the entire inquiry was conducted by affording reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself and the penalty imposed is commensurating to the delinquency established. As such, the appeal is having no force, hence dismissed." 17. A bare look at the finding recorded by the Appellate Committee reveals that the entire circumstances of the case including the statement of AW-5 was taken into consideration for reaching to the conclusion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority regarding guilt as well as quantum of punishment did not require any interference. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any case for interference in the concurrent orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Committee while invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The material available on record clearly indicates indiscipline on part of the petitioner in misbehaving with the senior Judicial Officer for the duty which the petitioner otherwise was bound to do. The quantum of punishment also cannot be said to be disproportionate so as to require any interference. 19. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******