1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2401/1995. : : Bhagwan Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 26.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Pankaj Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 30.6.1994 by which he was awarded penalty of one grade increment without cumulative effect and order dated 22.11.1994 by which appeal filed against such order of penalty was dismissed by Appellate Authority. 3. Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was served with notice under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958 on 4.5.1994 inter-alia on the charges that while he was 2 member of party, which raided the premises of M/s Ashoka Oil Industries on 8.6.1990 as per instructions of Deputy Commissioner Food, the excess oil in the quantity of 567 kgs were seized, but in doing so, petitioner did not adopt correct method of measurement and verification as per the guidelines of Weights & Measurement Department and that he also did not take in possession the deep chart on the basis of which excess oil was measured. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was merely a member of raiding party, which was led by Deputy Food Commissioner Shri J. P. Vimal whatever he was directed was executed by petitioner and other members of the party. If Shri J. P. Vimal did not instruct for seizure of deep chart, petitioner cannot be blamed for that. It is submitted that weight and measurement was made as per instructions of Deputy Food Commissioner Shri J. P. Vimal and petitioner has been proceeded against only because of observations made by Deputy Food Commissioner, who in exercise of his power under Section 6-C of Essential Commodities Act declared the seizure of excess oil as illegal and made certain observations. Learned counsel submitted that respondents did not take any action against Shri J. P. Vimal, Deputy Food Commissioner, who was Incharge and Leader of the team, under whose 3 instructions the entire activities were carried out. This aspect has completely been lost sight of by Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority has also held that petitioner cannot shift his guilt on to Shri J. P. Vimal. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that action was initiated not only against petitioner but also against three others namely; Shri Atal Bhargava, Shri Bhagwan Vyas and Shri Sudhindra Mishra, therefore, petitioner cannot say that he was being made scape goat. Petitioner was experienced Food Inspector, therefore, he should have been careful enough to take necessary steps as required by law for preparation and seizure of deep chart for measurement of excess oil in terms of instructions of Weight and Measurement Department. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that respondents have although stated that they have initiated action against all members of the team, but nothing has been said whether any action is initiated against Shri J. P. Vimal, who was Leader of team and Incharge of raid by virtue of his position 4 as Deputy Food Commissioner. Petitioner as Food Inspector and being member of raiding party obviously was discharging duties under supervision and control of Deputy Food Commissioner. Whatever was done was as per his instructions. If Shri J. P. Vimal did not deem it appropriate to seize deep charge, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for the same. The Appellate Authority has also wrongly rejected this argument by observing that such an argument cannot be raised at this stage because petitioner was an experienced inspector and was aware of the procedure adopted at the time of inspection. The fact was that petitioner did not raise this issue before Appellate Authority, but also raise additional issue in response to reply to the notice under Section 17 of CCA Rules. In the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned orders cannot be sustained. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.6.1994 and 22.11.1994 are both quashed and set aside. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 12.