BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) APPELLANTS are aggrieved with the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the responded a patrolling Officer under the Excise Preventive Force of the Excise Department. A chargesheet the target of registering the minimum number of cases while he was serving at Bali in the period immediate after he was posted there inter alia on the ground that the incumbent in registering less than the targeted number of cases under the provisions of Excise Act, has shown negligence in discharge of his duties. The respondent had furnished his explanation that since he has been appointed shortly before the period in question and he took some time to understand the working of the provisions of the Excise Act in the area under his control and the nature of breaches that are likely to occur in the area under his control. He also brought to the notice that he has no been made available with the requisite amount of facilities including timely availability of the transport which has caused short-fall in registration of the cases under the Excise Act. However, not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent was visited penalty of stoppage of two grade increment without cumulative effect by order dt. 6. 11. 96. The respondent-petitioner appealed against that order and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal with the following order:- Vihykfkhz] Jh tsfy;k] izgjkf/kdkjh us fu/kkzfjr y{; ds fo:) vkcdkjh vfhk;ksx iathd`r djus gsrq iz;kl ugha fd;k] tks mudh jkt;dk;z ds izfr mnklhurk ,oa ykijokgh dks izdv djrk gs vr% mijksdr foospu ds vuqlkj vihy Vihykfkhz [kkfjt dh tkdj vfrfjdr vk;qdr vkcdkjh] tks/kiqj ds n. Mkns'k fnukad 6-11-96] ftlds }kjk mudh 2 okf"kzd osru o`f);ka vlap;h izhkko ls jksdh xbz gs] ;fkkor j[kk tkrk gsa** It may be pertinent to notice here that the respondent has given comparative chart of the cases registered by his previous Patrolling Officers at Bali for 1988-89, 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92- 93, 93-94, 94-95 showing that 7, 1, 1, 3, 0, 2, and 11 cases in respective year have been registered during the last seven years in which maximum number of cases have been registered by the delinquent officer. However, without considering the total number of cases which have been registered in the past and whether the anticipated number of cases expected to occur had any nexus with targeted figures for registering cases, the punishment was imposed by Disciplinary Authority and was affirmed by the D. I. G.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with that order, the respondent-petitioner moved the Governor for review which too was rejected by order dt. 28. 10. 2000. It is pertinent to notice that during this period a decision of this Court had come into existence making certain observations about the fairness of the procedure subjecting the officers of the department to departmental enquiry and punishing them merely for not filfulling the target fixed for registering cases in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 490/98 decided on 8. 07. 1998. Appeal against which has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 53/99 decided on 4. 4. 99 (1) and SLP against which has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment has observed: ``it is not known as to how and under what circumstances and guidelines, the department can fix a quota for registering of minimum criminal cases for an Inspector. Even in a given case, if all the crimes are deducted in certain area and every person committing the crime is apprehended and number of crimes falls short of 72, such Inspector even though most efficient in apprehending all the culprits is sured to be censured for the reason that the department has fixed a quota of 72 cases which must be registered at any cost by any Inspector. This logic is not understandable. It can lead to false implication in the criminal cases so as to avoid the censure order from the department. '' ;