Honble BALIA, J.–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. (3). 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.Mknsk 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** (4). 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. (5). (5). 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. (6). Aggrieved with that order, the respondent-petitioner moved the Governor for review which too was rejected by order dt. 28.10.2000. (7). 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. (8). 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. (9). With these observations, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Tribunal by directing the respondent department to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the persons junior to them by ignoring the penalty of censuring imposed on the petitioner in that cases merely on the basis of charges of not fulfilling the target. (10). That Order has been affirmed by the Division Bench as noticed by us above. This decision was specifically brought to the notice of the Reviewing Authority. (10). That Order has been affirmed by the Division Bench as noticed by us above. This decision was specifically brought to the notice of the Reviewing Authority. However, without considering this aspect of the matter, the order was made as under:- ^^vihykFkhZ] Jh ykykjke tSfy;k] izgjkf/kdkjh us jkT; ljdkj dh vkKk fnukad 14-9-99 ds fo:) lh-lh-,- fu;eksa ds fu;e 34 ds vUrxZr egkefge jkT;iky egksn; dks iqujkoyksdu ;kfpdk izLrqr dh] ftls egkefge jkT;iky egksn; }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% mDr fLFkfr esa Jh tSfy;k] izgjkf/kdkjh dks fn;k x;k n.Mknsk fnukad 6-11-96 dks ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gSA** (11). This order has been made after noticing the aforesaid contention raised by the respondent-petitioner without giving reason for not accepting and following decision of this Court referring to above. (12). Aggrieved with that order the petitioner has preferred a writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judged relying on the decision of Sunil Grover referred to above. (13). The department is in appeal alleging that decision in Sunil Grovers case has no nexus to the decision in the present case of imposing penalty on the respondent. (14). Undoubtedly, it is true that decision in Sunil Grovers case had arisen out of non-consideration of the said petitioner for promotion on account of punishment of censure awarded to him on the very similar charges for which the petitioner-respondent in the present case has been punished and it was not the case which had arisen against the disciplinary proceedings. Yet the observations made by the Learned Single Judge are weighty observations and rightly reflects the great abuse which such fixation of target is likely to cause. This is demonstrably clear from the facts of the present case. Notwithstanding, pointing out the registered number of cases the comparable figures of the cases registered in the area for last seven years including the period during which delinquent officer was patrolling he area in question for which respondent has been punished which has not been found to be wrong. It has been made possible for the Disciplinary Authority to punish the petitioner-respondent with stoppage of two grade increments by simply rejecting the explanation on the ground that he has not fulfilled that target fixed by the department for registering the cases under the Act. It has been made possible for the Disciplinary Authority to punish the petitioner-respondent with stoppage of two grade increments by simply rejecting the explanation on the ground that he has not fulfilled that target fixed by the department for registering the cases under the Act. The petitioner has shown positively that immediate six years preceding the period of his assuming the duty, total number of cases registered in last six years had been only 14, of which 7 have been registered in 1988-89 and no case has been registered in 1992-93 and none of other years more then three cases have been registered whereas under the period in question 11 cases have been registered. Except that these figures do not fulfil the target for registering new cases, there is no material which has come on record to suggest that the respondent has been guilty of culpable negligence in discharging his obligations by not registering or detecting cases which exist. (15). We are, therefore, of the opinion that aforesaid procedure by which the practice of subjecting a person for disciplinary proceedings for punishing him for mere non-fulfilment of projected targets without anything more does not warrant imposing of any punishment. It only warrants issuing note of advice and that if there is no sufficient material of existing and persisting criminality in the area or there are statistics suggesting that the breaches of the Excise Act and rules framed thereunder which have been detected are too scant to match the notoriety of the area for commission of such breaches of law or committing offences. In the absence of any relevant material the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is otherwise not sustainable. (16). The principle enunciated in Sunil Grovers case is relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. One must make a distinction between cases of targets fixed for positive results from implementing any statute or policy of Govt. in any field of achievements on the one hand and targets fixed for registering number of case for breaches or violation of law, which is dependent on actual commission of breaches/obligations by the subjects of such law. Number of breaches or violations of law cannot be presumed to take place so as to make it incumbent upon an officer to register and detect minimum number of cases of such breaches. Number of breaches or violations of law cannot be presumed to take place so as to make it incumbent upon an officer to register and detect minimum number of cases of such breaches. Acting with vigilance and registration of cases are not necessarily one and same thing. The latter activity can only be justified on detection of breaches or violations of law. Without finding any such existing breaches so as to establish nexus between officers conduct with the alleged act of negligence, no adverse consequence of punishment can befall the incumbent. One cannot countenance motivation to register a sizable number of cases fox breach of law, to windowdress the effectiveness of law through demonstrative statistics. It is a bad governance and counter productive to breed any respect for law to be an effective means of social change, apart from the fact that it reflects a said commentary on policy framers who start with assumption that laws framed by the State shall not receive general acceptability and will result in large scale non- observance of law by the people who are to be its subject. Compelling any officer to register an officer of the State to involve a minimum number of people in accusation of law breaking at the pains of suffering disciplinary enquiry solely for non- fulfilment of such target is anything but reasonable without material to suggest that cases of such breaches do exist, but has gone undetected due to negligence of the officer. it leads to registering increasingly false and non-existent cases to make up the statistics. In order to obviate such abuse, it is necessary that before an incumbent is held negligent in discharge of his duties, such nexus is established. (17). As a result, we do not find the case in which the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference. (18). The appeal is dismissed.