1
Gemra Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.350/2006)
Date of Order : 02.04.2009
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Bhandari for Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the respondents.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.10.96
passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of
withholding of two grades increments with cumulative effect upon
the petitioner for charge of misconduct proved against him, order
dated 2.9.99 passed by the Appellate Authority reducing the
punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative
effect to that of censure and order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the
Reviewing Authority rejecting the review petition preferred by the
petitioner for review of the aforesaid orders. Besides, the
petitioner has also sought direction against the respondent to
extend all consequential benefit to him including the consideration
of his case for grant of second selection grade on completion of 18
years of service.
3. The petitioner working as Excise Inspector Gr.I with the
Department of Excise, Government of Rajasthan, was served with a
2
notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’),
proposing disciplinary action against him with the allegation that
during the year 1993-94, he has failed to register the minimum
number of cases in conformity with the norms prescribed which
reflects his carelessness and dereliction towards the duties. The
petitioner submitted his representation stating therein that prior
to 1991 Pokaran Excise Division was under the Jaisalmer Range and
during the period 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 total number of
cases registered under the Pokaran Range were only 4,3 & 2
respectively. It was submitted that there was not much violation of
the excise laws during the relevant period in the Pokaran Range,
therefore, even after the best efforts only 14 cases could be
registered. It was submitted that there was no negligence on his
part in achieving the target. However, after consideration of the
representation made by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority
found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him and
accordingly, imposed the punishment of withholding two grade
increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 16.10.96.
On appeal, the punishment of withholding two grade increments
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was reduced to censure by
3
the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.9.99. A review petition
preferred by the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 was
rejected by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 2.11.2004.
Hence, this petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
mere non fulfillment of projected target of registering the cases
under the Excise Law without anything more does not warrant
imposition of punishment. It is submitted that registration of the
case always depend on actual commission of offences, therefore,
not achieving the target by itself cannot give rise to disciplinary
action against an employee. The learned counsel submitted that it
has not been proved that the petitioner was negligent in
discharging of his duties, therefore, the penalty imposed is
absolutely unjustified. In this regard, the learned counsel has
relied upon a bench decision of this Court in ‘State of Rajasthan &
Ors. Vs. Lala Ram’ 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 189. Regarding delay, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in
filing the writ petition has been explained satisfactorily in para 12
of the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
petitioner remained under the belief that the punishment of
censure would not adversely affect his service career.
4
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner has failed to
achieve the projected target, therefore, he has rightly been guilty
of the charge of misconduct levelled against him. It is submitted
by the learned counsel that the penalty of withholding of two
grade increments without cumulative effect by the Disciplinary
Authority has already been reduced to that of censure by the
Appellate Authority, therefore, the sufficient relief already stands
granted to the petitioner and the orders impugned does not
warrant any interference by this Court. It is submitted by the
learned counsel that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner
suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay inasmuch as after
rejection of the review petition, the present writ petition has been
filed after lapse of about more than one year.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record.
7. It is to be noticed that the only allegation against the
petitioner is that failure on his part in achieving the projected
target of registering the cases for violation of Excise Laws, reflects
his carelessness and dereliction towards the duties. It is not the
case of the respondents that though the offences of breaches or
5
violation of the Excise Law were committed within the area falling
within the jurisdiction of the appellant more than the cases
registered by him yet on account of his negligence the cases were
not registered. It goes without saying that the registration of the
cases depends on actual occurrence of the offences, therefore, the
allegation of not achieving the projected target of registering cases
by itself shall not constitute ‘misconduct’ so as to warrant
disciplinary action against the employee.
8. As a matter of fact, the controversy involved in the present
case stands covered by the Bench decision of this Court in Lala
Ram’s case (supra) wherein after due consideration the Court
observed :
“The principle enunciated in Sunil Grover’s case is
relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case.
One must make a distinction between cases of targets
fixed for positive results from implementing any
statute or policy of Govt. in any field of achievements
on the one hand and targets fixed for registering
number of cases for breaches or violation of law, which
is dependent on actual commission of
breaches/obligations by the subjects of such law.
Number of breaches or violations of law cannot be
presumed to take place so as to make it incumbent
upon an officer to register and detect minimum
number of cases of such breaches. Acting with
vigilance and registration of cases are not necessarily
one and same thing. The latter activity can only be
justified on detection of breaches or violation of law.
Without finding any such existing breaches so as to
establish nexus between officer’s conduct with the
6alleged act of negligence, no adverse consequence of
punishment can befall the incumbent. One cannot
countenance motivation to register a sizable number
of cases for breach of law, to windowdress the
effectiveness of law through demonstrative statistics.
It is a bad governance and counter productive to breed
any respect for law to be an effective means of social
change, apart from the fact that it reflects a sad
commentary on policy framers who start with
assumption that laws framed by the State shall not
receive general acceptability and will result in large
scale non-observance of law by the people who are to
be its subject. Compelling any officer to register an
officer of the State to involve a minimum number of
people in accusation of law breaking at the pains of
suffering disciplinary enquiry solely for non fulfillment
of such target is anything but reasonable without
material to suggest that cases of such breaches do
exist, but has gone undetected due to negligence of
the officer. It leads to registering increasingly false
and non-existent cases to make up the statistics. In
order to obviate such abuse, it is necessary that before
an incumbent is held negligent in discharge of his
duties, such nexus is established.”
9. In view of the position of law settled by this Court as
aforesaid, in absence of any allegation that the offences
committed during the year in question has gone undetected due to
negligence of the petitioner, he cannot be held guilty for any
misconduct of negligence or carelessness in discharge of duties as
Excise Inspector.
10. Coming to the question of delay in filing the writ petition, it
is to be noticed that in para 12 of the writ petition explaining the
delay in filing the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that
7
he was granted benefit of selection grade after completion of 9
years of service vide order dated 3.11.97 w.e.f. 18.8.96, however,
thereafter when the petitioner claimed second selection grade on
completion of 18 years of service in the month of December, 2005,
he was informed that on account of punishment of censure the
second selection grade to be granted on completion of 18 years of
service should be deferred for a period of one year. Therefore,
considering the adverse effect of the order impugned , the
petitioner has preferred this writ petition immediately thereafter.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered
opinion of this Court, the explanation submitted by the petitioner
is plausible and acceptable and the writ petition cannot be
dismissed solely on the ground of delay. Moreover, keeping in view
the finding arrived at as aforesaid that the allegations said to be
proved against the petitioner does not even constitute
misconduct , in the considered opinion of this court , it will be
against the interest of justice to dismiss the writ petition solely on
the ground of delay .
11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby
allowed. Orders impugned dated 16.10.96 (Annexure-3), 2.9.99
(Annexure-4) and 2.11.04 (Annexure-6) are quashed and set aside.
8
The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. No
order as to costs.
[SANGEET LODHA],J.
vijayant