SBCWP NO.653/08. { 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.653/2008. Rajnikant Pandya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order:- May 28, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Alok Sharma for the petitioner. Shri J.M. Saxena for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order of penalty dated 20/6/2006 and the order dated 20/9/2007 by which appeal filed against the earlier order was rejected. Charge on which petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was that when he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Anti Evasion Department, he failed to achieve the target meant for recovery of revenue in the anti evasion. It is contended that petitioner was one of the SBCWP NO.653/08. { 2 } members of team which consisted of various officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and that it was collective target to undertake exercise of preventing the evasion of tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kisna Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.7462/2008) decided on 18/11/2008 in which case also, in identical situation, same penalty was imposed against an employee in the same department who too was serving as Assistant Commissioner as an anti evasion officer in the flying squad and was awarded the similar penalty. Upon consideration of the arguments of the parties, the co-ordinate Bench while allowing the writ petition, observed as under:- “As said above, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner failed to achieve the required target relating to recovery of revenue and therefore, the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the penalty. From stand of the respondents it appears that the failure to achieve target for effecting recovery of revenue itself is treated as a misconduct and as such there was no need to examine the surrounding facts cuasing less recovery of revenue than the target SBCWP NO.653/08. { 3 } prescribed. If the stand aforesaid be accepted, then there was no need even to conduct an inquiry or to say the need was only to the extent of determination of penalty. However, it is not the correct legal position. It is well settled that to constitute a misconduct there should be a wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct that may be due to slackness, carelessness or due to some act by commission or omission on the part of the employee. An employer while alleging misconduct against the employee must note the omission or commission of a wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct or act on part of the employee concerned. Mere mentioning of result or mere mentioning of consequence of such act is not sufficient. The department or th employer, as the case may be, may have suffered loss, received injury for certain reasons but to reach at a conclusion that such injuries or losses are because of some improper and unlawful conduct of the employee, necessary details regarding commission or omission and the acts of such employee are required to be given. In the instant matter in quite a vague manner a simple allegation is levelled against the petitioner that he failed to achieve the settled target for collection revenue. It is no where stated in the allegation or in statement supporting the allegation SBCWP NO.653/08. { 4 } that because of deeds or because of omission on part of the delinquent employee the government suffered a loss on account of less recovery of revenue. As a matter of fact in the instant matter the charge itself is not specific and as such initiation of disciplinary proceedings on such a vague charge is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice.” 2) Aforesaid judgment was subjected to challenge before the Division Bench. Appeal of the State of Rajasthan was dismissed by the Division Bench. 3) Learned counsel for the respondents although opposed the writ petition but is not in a positin to distinguish the present matter with the facts of the aforecited judgment. The controversy thus appears to have been set at rest by the aforesaid judgment. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The orders dated 20/6/2006 and 20/9/2007 are quashed and set-aside. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil