VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the order dated 5. 6. 1999 (Annex. 3), Order dated 13. 8. 2001 (Annex. 6) and Order dated 27. 6. 2002 (Annex. 7) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Patrolling Officer, Gr. II (Prahra Adhikari) in the Excise Department vide order dated 20. 2. 1984. It is averred that the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 3. 8. 1998 (Annex. 1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). A bare perusal of the notice reveals that the petitioner had recovered 200 bottles Gulab of illicit liquor from the farm house of one Amba Lal, who was allegedly not available on the spot and on that recovery he did not prepare the site plan properly and he did not do the seal cheat properly whereby the accused was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. A reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner on 17. 9. 1998 (Annex. 2 ). The petitioner submitted in the reply that in the site plan the desired neighbours including the field of Gopal Gurjar were shown and since Inder Singh was present, he was taken as a `motbir' witness. He also submitted that the ganni bags of seized liquor were properly sealed and handed over to one Suraj Prakash Singh Rathore, the Excise Inspector, Bundi Nagar, in sealed condition. However, the petitioner was awarded censure vide order dated 5. 6. 1999 (Annex. 3 ). It is further averred that the petitioner was issued with another notice dated 16. 1. 2001 (Annex. 4) under Rule 17 of the Rules. A bare perusal of the notice reveals that the allegations against the petitioner were regarding non-maintenance of documents (Registers) and also that during the year 1999-2000 the petitioner had registered 9 cases upto August, 1999 and in the year 2000-2001 the petitioner has registered 19 cases upto December, 2002 which registration of cases was less than the average. The petitioner hastened to mention here that it is a matter of pride that during the petitioner's tenure the number of excise offences were reduced, in as much as, excise offences were less and thus, the petitioner's job deserves to be appreciated and he could not be punished. A reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner on 2. 2. 2001 (Annex. 5 ). The petitioner submitted in the reply that he had been discharging his duties and doing his job satisfactorily. However, the petitioner being very busy in performing his substantial duties, and for shortage of staff few documentation could not be completed. The petitioner was punished with the stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 13. 8. 2001 (Annex. 6 ). Against the order dated 13. 8. 2001 (Annex. 6), the petitioner preferred an appeal which was partly allowed and the punishment of stoppage one grade increment without cumulative effect was converted into censure vide order dated 27. 6. 2002 (Annex. 7 ).
(3.) HENCE, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been discharging his duties honestly and sincerely and in that process, the petitioner had made efforts and during his tenure number of excise offences were reduced. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the petitioner having remained busy in preventing the excise offence and also for the shortage of staff, the petitioner could not carry out certain documentation in time which cannot be said to be misconduct warranting any departmental action or punishment against the petitioner. ;