Judgment S.K. Sharma, J.-With the consent of learned Counsel for parties the matter has been taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:- (i) toquash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 02.03.1998, punishment order dated 03.04.1998 and the appellate order dated 18.09.2001; (ii) to direct respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner all consequential benefits to the petitioner as if punishment was never awarded;’ 3. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector Grade-II on 26.07.1996 on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner joined his duties in Excise Circle Hanumangarh on 26.09.1996. The petitioner remained on leave from 012.1996 to 112.1996 (fifteen days) and from 112.1996 to 03.01.1997 (eighteen days). The circular dated 18.05.1987 has been issued whereby the target of cases has been fixed in Circle `A’ and `B’ for essentially registering the excise cases 6 and 4 per month. Failing which the Inspector is liable for disciplinary action under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short `CCA Rules’). 4. The respondents in their written statement raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground of delay and alternative remedy. 5. I have heard the submissions and scanned the material on record. 6. In my opinion fixing a quote by the Excise Department for registering of minimum criminal cases cannot be held to be reasonable. In order to avoid punishment an Officer may falsely implicate innocent persons. In a similar situation the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lala Ram, 2002 (1) WLC 189, observed in Para 15 thus:- “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 on 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.” 7. The impugned punishment orders which suffer from the vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness are not sustainable. The preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents are devoid of merit. 8. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 02.03.1998, 03.03.1998 and 18.09.2001. I direct the respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner as if the punishment was never imposed on the petitioner. No costs.