JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition was listed before the Court on 02.01.2018 and no Counsel had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter and as such the case was adjourned. The case was called again today for hearing and no Counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the penalty of censure imposed on him by order dated 12.08.1993. The petitioner was issued a Memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’), wherein two charges were levelled against him. It was alleged in charge No.1 that while the petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector-SHO at Police Station Bonli in the year 1993, one complainant Radhey Shyam Sharma had come to Police Station for lodging an FIR in respect of an incident where his crop was taken away by the accused party and his house was set on fire. The petitioner did not register the FIR of the said incident and further threatened the complainant to implicate him in a false case. Charge No.2 against the petitioner was with respect to not complying with the direction issued by the DGP, Jaipur for registering a case on 11.03.1993 and as such petitioner was alleged to have violated the orders of the higher officials. 3. The said two acts of the petitioner were termed as misconduct and accordingly his explanation was called. The petitioner filed reply to the memo of allegations and submitted that no misconduct was committed by him. The petitioner also denied that he failed to lodge the FIR of the alleged incident. On the contrary the petitioner submitted that complainant Radhey Shyam himself was an accused in Case No.21/1993 under Sections 447, 379 IPC and in order to create a defence, he had alleged that his FIR was not registered. The petitioner also denied the charge of receiving any letter from higher officials. 4. The disciplinary authority after taking into account, the explanation of the petitioner found that both the charges against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority had afforded personal hearing also to the petitioner before taking final decision and finally a penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner. 4. The disciplinary authority after taking into account, the explanation of the petitioner found that both the charges against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority had afforded personal hearing also to the petitioner before taking final decision and finally a penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the order dated 31.07.1993 and filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur. The Appellate Authority considered all the contentions of the petitioner raised in his departmental appeal and vide its order dated 30.05.1995 while dismissing the appeal upheld the penalty order. The petitioner further filed a review petition under Rule 33 of the CCA Rules, 1958 before the Governor and requested that penalty order was wholly unjustified. The Reviewing Authority vide its order dated 29.12.1997 has rejected the review petition of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the penalty order, Appellate Authority’s order and Reviewing Authority’s order. A perusal of the memo of appeal shows that petitioner has only stated that the charge-sheet issued to him and departmental enquiry conducted against him, were not justified and petitioner had not committed any misconduct. 6. The Court finds that the disciplinary authority has taken into account the explanation given by the petitioner and has recorded a specific finding that petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duty and further he disobeyed the command of the higher officers by not lodging the FIR. The Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority have also considered the entire pleas raised by the petitioner. 7. The Court does not find that any illegality has been committed in passing the orders by the disciplinary authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority. 8. There is no force in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.