JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. Instant petition has been filed assailing the penalty of censure inflicted upon the petitioner after holding enquiry for the misconduct alleged against him that he failed to achieve target of recovery fixed by the department under the Rules, 1958 vide order Dt. 16.04.2012 and confirmed in appeal on rejection of his appeal vide order Dt. 18.11.2014. 2. The petitioner who is serving as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies while he was working as Secretary, Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd., Hindaun during the period 2009-10 and to be more specific from 07.10.2009 to 30.06.2010 it is alleged by the respondents that he failed to achieve average target for recovery fixed in the Financial Year 2009-10 which was 38.38% whereas the petitioner achieved 18.53% which was considered to be a misconduct committed by him under the Conduct Rules and a notice u/R. 17 was served upon the petitioner along with memorandum of charge-sheet Dt. 01.04.2011. This court considers it appropriate to quote the relevant charges levelled against the petitioner, which read ad infra:- dk;kZy; jftLVªkj lgdkjh lfefr;k¡ jktLFkku t;iqj vkjksi i= fo:} Jh dsnkjey eh.kk] lgk;d iath;d ,oa rRdkyhu lfpo] izkFkfed lgdkjh Hkwfe fodkl cSad fy +tkykSj fg.MkSu vUrxZr jktLFkku flfoy lfoZlst ¼DyklhfQds’ku] dUVªksy ,.M vihy½ fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 17 ds rgrA vkjksi izFke%& cSad dh _.k olwyh jkT; vkSlr ls de djukA vki Jh dsnkjey eh.kk] lgk;d iath;d] lgdkjh lfefr;k¡ ds fo:} izkFkfed lgdkjh Hkwfe fodkl cSad fy+- fg.MkSu ds lfpo in ij inLFkkiu vof/k ds nkSjku forh; o"kZ 2009&10 esa cSad dh _.k olwyh jkT; vkSlr ls de djus dk vkjksi gS ftldk foLr`r fooj.k i`Fkd ls layXu vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr vkjksi la[;k izFke esa of.kZrkuqlkj gSA vkjksi f}rh; % & foHkkxh; vkns’kksa@funsZ’kksa dh ikyuk esa ykijokgh cjrukA vki Jh dsnkjey eh.kk] lgk;d iath;d] lgkdjh lfefr;k¡ ds fo:} izkFkfed lgdkjh Hkwfe fodkl cSad fy- fg.MkSu ds lfpo in ij inLFkkiu ds nkSjku foHkkxh; vkns’kksa@funsZ’kksa dh ikyuk esa ykijokgh cjrus dk vkjksi gS ftldk foLr`r fooj.k i`Fkd ls layXu vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr vkjksi la[;k f}rh; esa of.kZrkuqlkj gSA Sd/- ¼izse falag esgjk½ jftLVªkj 3. Reply was filed by the petitioner and it was stated that he has shown his inability and assigned reasons for which he could not achieve the recovery target for the Financial Year 2009-10 and details have been furnished under Annex. Reply was filed by the petitioner and it was stated that he has shown his inability and assigned reasons for which he could not achieve the recovery target for the Financial Year 2009-10 and details have been furnished under Annex. 2 but it appears that authority was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner and arrived to the conclusion that as he failed to achieve the recovery target fixed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies which was constituted to be a misconduct and he was punished with the penalty of censure vide order Dt. 16.04.2012 and the appeal also came to be dismissed vide order Dt. 18.11.2014 (Annex. 6). 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that apart from the explanation which the petitioner furnished to show that what was the reason behind in failing to achieve the target fixed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. His further bone of contention is that not achieving of target of recovery in no manner constitute misconduct under the Conduct Rules, 1971 for which he could not be charge-sheeted and the very charge levelled against him for which Disciplinary Enquiry was conducted under the Rules, 1958 and the consequential penalty inflicted upon him is not sustainable in law and he further placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lala Ram reported in 2002(1) WLC (Raj.)189. 5. Counsel for respondents submits that if the employee fails in discharge of his duties to achieve the target of recovery certainly it can be said dereliction of duty and he has been punished after regular enquiry being held against him under the Rules, 1958 and in absence of any reasonable justification being tendered by the petitioner, no error was committed by the respondents in passing the order inflicting penalty upon him and as regards appeal, that has been looked into by the authority and in absence of any justified reasons being assigned, no error was committed by the respondents in rejecting the appeal. 6. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, this court finds substance that merely because the incumbent failed to achieve the target of recovery fixed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies that in itself may not constitute a misconduct under the Conduct Rules, 1971 for which enquiry could be held and this what has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to supra and operative portion thereof being relevant is reproduced ad infra:- "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-fulfillment 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 Grover's 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 cases 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 office 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 officer's 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 for breach of law, to window dress the effectiveness of law through demonstrative statistic. Without finding any such existing breaches so as to establish nexus between officer's 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 for breach of law, to window dress the effectiveness of law through demonstrative statistic. It is a bad governance and counterproductive to breed any respect for law to be an effective means of social change, apart from the fact that it reflects a sad 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 office 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-fulfillment 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 statistic. 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." 7. Indisputably, in the instant case non-fulfillment of target of recovery in achieving the benchmark by the petitioner in itself could not constitute a misconduct under the Conduct Rules, 1971 and no other allegation is levelled against the petitioner, except in failing to achieve the target of recovery. 8. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to supra, the order inflicting penalty upon the petitioner and so also the order of appeal passed by the authority are not sustainable in law and deserves to the quashed. 9. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds & is hereby allowed. The order of punishment Dt. 16.04.2012 and the order passed by the appellate authority Dt. 18.11.2014 are quashed & set aside and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.