Jaykrit Singh S/O Shri Sumer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2645 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2645 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 30 March, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Jaykrit Singh S/O Shri Sumer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4679/2019
Jaykrit Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of C-5 Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Deputy Secretary Finance
       (Excise) Secretariat Jaipur.
2.     Commissioner Excise Department, Abakari Bhawan-2,
       Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Poswal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 30/03/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved

in this writ petition has been considered and decided by the

Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Bhori Lal Meena

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writs No.12736/2017)

decided on 03.04.2019 where in it has been held as under:-

"The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the order dt. 25th July, 2014, passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The Appeal and the Review Petition filed by the petitioner, have also been dismissed vide order dt. 26th April, 2016 and 11th April, 2017, respectively by the Appellate Authority andthe Reviewing Authority.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was issued a charge-

sheet, wherein allegation was leveled against the petitioner that while working as Excise Inspector, Circle Akhlera, District Jahalawar, he had registered only 4 cases under Section 16/54 of the Excise Act and

(2 of 4) [CW-4679/2019]

only 15 cases under Section 58 (C) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the charge of not filing the challan in those cases in the Competent Court, was also leveled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority found that due to said act of the petitioner, there was a loss of revenue.

Counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Najeeb A Khan submitted that non-registration of the case or not achieving the target of particular number of cases, cannot be termed as 'misconduct' and for the same, petitioner cannot be punished.

Counsel further submitted that this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lala Ram reported in 2002 (1) WLC 189 has taken a view that a person cannot be penalized, if he fails to complete the minimum target which is assigned to him for registration of cases. Counsel also places reliance upon the judgment in the case of Kedar Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 192.

Counsel also refers to the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16102/2016 (Dharmendra Kumar Sharma Vs. His Excellency, Government of State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13318/2016 (Bhori Lal Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided vide common order dt. 30th July, 2018.

Counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner that he did not register adequate number of cases under the Excise Act, cannot be a basis to initiate Departmental Enquiry by terming the same to be a misconduct. Counsel submitted that the other allegations are also related to the same incident of not registering required number of cases like not filing the challan or loss of Revenue and such act cannot itself be a misconduct.

Learned counsel for the respondents- Mr. Nikhil Simlote though does not dispute the legal position, however, he submits that petitioner is not only charged with allegations of registering the minimum number of cases but he is also negligent in not completing the investigation in proper time by not filing the challan and further due to his acts, there were Revenue loss.

Counsel submitted that the petitioner

(3 of 4) [CW-4679/2019]

has not been penalized only for non registration of cases but due to his misconduct in respect of dereliction of duty.

This Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13318/2016 (Bhori Lal Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) dt. 30th July, 2018, has passed the order after considering the judgments passed by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lala Ram (supra) & Kedar Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).

This Court has taken a view that a person cannot be held responsible/penalized, if the minimum target of registration of cases is not achieved by him and the same does not amount to misconduct. The order passed by this Court in the case of Bhori Lal Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-

"This Court finds that the basic allegation against the petitioner is in respect of not registering/achieving the minimum target in respect of registration of cases.

This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lala Ram (Supra) as well as in the case of Vijay Krishna Vyas Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(Supra) and Kedar Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) has taken a view that a person cannot be held responsible if the minimum target of registration of case is not achieved and same does not amount to misconduct.

This Court following the law laid down by the Division Bench and by Co-ordinate Benches, allows the instant petition and set aside the penalty orders dt. 25th July, 2014 (Annex.2), 22nd June, 2015 th (Annex.4) & 5 August, 2016 (Annex.6).

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed."

This Court finds that in the present case, the basic allegation against the petitioner is in respect of not registering number of cases under the Excise Act while working as Excise Inspector. The other related charge of not filing challan etc. also

(4 of 4) [CW-4679/2019]

eminates from the basic charge against the petitioner of not registering the cases. This Court finds that once the non registration of cases is not a misconduct, the petitioner cannot be punished even with the minor penalty.

The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty, as he did not file requisite challan in the Court and as such there is loss of revenue, this Court finds that the respondents have not leveled the allegation as how much loss has been caused to the revenue or in which case the petitioner failed to discharge his duties in a diligent manner by not filing the challan.

This Court finds that the basic charge against the petitioner is of registering very few cases under the Excise Act and the same does not amount to misconduct to initiate the Disciplinary Enquiry against him.

This Court finds that once the non registration of cases or not achieving the target is not a misconduct, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any other act, which is related to the main act of not registering the required number of cases.

This Court does not have any other choice except to allow the present writ petition and set aside the penalty orders dt. 25th July, 2014 (Annex. 3), 26th April, 2016 (Annex. 5) & 11th April, 2017 (Annex. 7) and the same are hereby quashed & set aside.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed."

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has

not disputed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of in

view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court

in the matter of Bhori Lal Meena (supra) and Annexure-9 dated

12.08.2015 & Annexure-12 dated 23.05.2016 are quashed and set

aside.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /164