ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26/9/2016 (Annex.12) passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 28/6/2017 passed by the appellate authority, whereby, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and his salary other than subsistence allowance for the period of suspension has been forfeited and appeal filed by him has been dismissed. 2. A complaint was made by one Hemraj Dhobi, working as conductor on the bus being driven by the petitioner as driver of the Corporation, that on 21/7/2016 when he was assigned duty at Udaipur pertaining to vehicle No. RJ-06-PA-2217, during the course of his duty petitioner Babu Lal misbehaved with him and deliberately moved the bus when he was boarding the bus, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. 3. By order dated 28/7/2016, the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and a charge sheet dated 3/8/2016 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner gave response and after inquiry officer was appointed and inquiry was held, wherein, the department examined the complainant Hemraj Dhobi and petitioner produced two witnesses, the inquiry officer by his report dated 20/9/2016 found the charges as proved against the petitioner. 4. After show cause notice along with the inquiry report was issued to the petitioner and after hearing him, the Chief Manager, Bhilwara Depot, based on the inquiry report, held the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment as noticed hereinbefore. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal, the appellate authority by its order dated 28/6/2017 rejected the appeal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made by the conductor of the bus were false and fabricated, the allegations made were criminal in nature, however, no FIR was lodged, which clearly indicates that the allegations made were false. 7. It was further submitted that it was only on the instruction of the conductor that the bus was moved and if on account of his own negligence the conductor fell down while boarding the bus, the petitioner cannot be held liable for any misconduct. 8. Further submissions were made that from the material before the inquiry officer, it cannot be said that the charges were proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. 8. Further submissions were made that from the material before the inquiry officer, it cannot be said that the charges were proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. The inquiry officer, after analyzing the material available before him including the statement of complainant and two witnesses produced by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. 11. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. The inquiry officer, after analyzing the material available before him including the statement of complainant and two witnesses produced by the petitioner came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. 11. The disciplinary authority in its impugned order dated 26/9/2016 (Annex.12) came to the following conclusion: ^^esjs }kjk vkjksfir ds fo:) bl dk;kZy; esa fnuakd 22-09-2016 dks izkIr mDr iw.kZ tkap i=koyh dk Hkyh Hkakfr voyksdu ,d v/;u fd;k x;k ftlesa f'kdk;rdrkZ Jh gsejkt/kksch ifjpkyd }kjk f'kdk;r ds vuq:i gh c;ku ntZ djkdj vkjksi dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA vkjksfir dks oDr tkap volj iznku fd;k x;k ftlesa mlds }kjk Lo;a ds nks xokgksa ds c;ku o Lo;a ds c;ku ntZ djkdj vkjksi dk [k.M+u djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ysfdu mlds }kjk dksbZ rF;kRed lcwr izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s ftlls vkjksi dk [k.M+u gksrk gksA tkap fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vkjksih ds izFke xokg ds c;ku fojks/kkHkk"kh izrhr gksrs gS] D;ksfd f'kdk;rdrkZ ifjpkyd okgu esa p<+rs le; uhps fxj x;k Fkk rFkk mlds }kjk viuk bykt gkaLihVy esa bUM+ksj esa HkrhZ gksdj djok;k x;k ;g nLrkostksa ls izekf.kr gSA vkjksfir ds nwljs xokg ds c;ku Hkh lafnX/k izrhr gksrs gS D;ksafd mldh M~;wVh 11 cts Fkh rFkk ,d ?kaVs iwoZ gh mlds }kjk okgu LVs.M+ ij yxk nh xbZ gks ;g lafnX/k yxrk gSA blds vfrfjDr vkjksih }kjk dh xbZ ftjg esa Hkh f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk vkjksi dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA vr% eSa nksuksa gh xokgksa ds c;kuksa dks lgh ugha ekurs gq, vkjksfir dks mDr izdj.k esa iw.kZ :i ls nks"kh ekurk gwaA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk mls Hkh nks"kh ekuk x;k gS ftlls eSa iw.kZr;k lger gwaA vr% eSa eq[; izcU/kd vki Jh ckcwyky [kVhd iq= Jh uUnk th fuyfEcr pkyd HkhyokM+k vkxkj dks vkjksi i= dzeakd 0425 fnuakd 03-08-2016 esa tkap vf/kdkjh dh jk; ls lger gksrs gq, nks"kh ik;s tkus ij fuEu n.M+ ls nf.M+r djrk gwa%& 1 & fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns'k dh /kkjk 36¼2½ ds rgr ,d okf"kZd osruo`f) lap;h izHkko fon dE;wysfVo bQSDV ls jksdh tkrh gSA 2 & fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns'k dh /kkjk 36¼5½ ds rgr fuyEcu dky dk 'ks"k osru fuxe fgr esa tIr fd;k tkrk gSA bUgsa iw.kZ tkap cgky fd;k tkrk gSA** 12. Where after, on filing of the appeal, the appellate authority after thoroughly perusing the material available before it came to the conclusion that full opportunity was granted by the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority to the petitioner and as no additional material and/or circumstance has been shown, there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and consequently dismissed the appeal. 13. The disciplinary authority has thoroughly dealt with the issue and has recorded a finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality and/or perversity in the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and/or the appellate authority so as to require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Looking to the nature of allegations made by the conductor and found proved by the inquiry officer after thorough inquiry, it also cannot be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive. 16. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the orders impugned. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.