1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.611/2008. (VIJAY SINGH VS. STATE & OTHERS) DATE OF ORDER : 12.09.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Vinay Jain for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob for the respondents. By a memorandum dated 21.09.2000, the Collector (Land Records), Jalore subjected the petitioner for an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 with the allegation that on 19.09.2008 the petitioner was not found available at Head Quarater on inspection, despite specific instructions given by the competent authority for remaining present at Head Quarters on every Monday and Tuesday. In reply to the memorandum referred above, the petitioner stated that on 19.09.2000, he was working at Patwar Ghar, village Kotwal and made a recovery of a sum of Rs.830/- regarding government dues. The petitioner also stated that as a matter of fact, he was not made acquaint with the Circular dated 08.09.2000, wherein a direction was given to remain present at Head Quarters on Monday and Tuesday of every week. 2 The disciplinary authority by the order dated 20.12.2000, imposed a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments upon the petitioner by holding him guilty for alleged misconduct. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal and that also came to be rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on 21.10.2003. A review petition filed by the petitioner also came to be rejected by an order dated 15.02.2006. Giving challenge to the orders aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are: (1) that the petitioner,on 19.09.2008 was not aware of the Circular dated 08.09.2000, whereby instructions were issued for all Patwaris to remain present at the Head Quarters of the Patwar Circle concern on every Monday and Tuesday of the week, being not made available to him and, therefore, the petitioner has not violated any government instructions, and (2) that the petitioner on 19.09.2000, the day on which the inspection was made, was present at 3 Patwar Ghar, village Kotwal and made a recovery of a sum of Rs.830/- and subsequent thereto a sum of Rs.430/- against Girdawari. The recovery of the same of Rs.430/- was made at village Kharal within the Patwar circle concern, as such he was discharging government duties. There was no ill intention for not remaining present on Circle Head Quarters on the day of inspection. On the other hand, stand of the respondents that once a direction was issued by the competent authority for all the Patwaris to remain present at Patwar Circle Head Quarters on every Monday and Tuesday of the week, then it was obligatory for the petitioner to obey the same and admittedly the petitioner was not present at the Head Quarter of the Patwar Circle at the time of the inspection, thus, no error is committed by the disciplinary authority while imposing the penalty in question. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the reply given by the petitioner to the memorandum issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, it is apparent that the petitioner was discharging his duties as 4 Patwari on 19.09.2000 and on the same day he also effected recovery of the amount relating to the Girdawari. It is well settled that for holding a person guilty for a misconduct, the employer should establish ill intentions or gross negligence of the delinquent employee while commission or omission of duties. In the instant matter, no such intention is established. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was discharging the duties attached with his office and, while doing so, no ill act was committed by him. Beside this, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not taken into consideration the fact that the instructions given under the communication dated 08.08.2000 were not communicated to the petitioner even up to the date of inspection and as such he was not aware of such instructions. In view of whatever discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was penalized by the disciplinary authority under the order impugned erroneously. As such, the order of disciplinary authority is declared illegal, same is quashed. All consequential orders stand quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/