JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the Director General of Police and the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Under Secretary, Home Department. 3. The short facts leading to the present petition are as under : 3.1 The petitioner was working as a Police Sub-Inspector since 2001 and after completion of 8 years, he was promoted as Police Inspector and posted at Anti Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad and thereafter, transferred to Kheda District as Police Inspector at Kapadvanj Town Police Station from 9.10.2014 to 31.7.2017. The Rapid Response Cell, Ahmedabad Range has received secret information that one person namely, Sunil Darji is supplying English Liquor in the vehicle from Bichuvada, Rajasthan and it was loaded in Swift Desire Car bearing Registration No. GJ27AN3547. 3.2 Rapid Response Cell arranged the watch along with the Punch witnesses and arranged Blockade (Nakabandhi) at Modasa Dakor High way at Kapadvanj Pankhiya Road. When the said car arrived near the police surveillance, the car did not stop and the driver drove away the car to the other direction. When the police followed the said car, it moved towards Ladvel Cross roads from Pankhiya Sikandarpoora and from Ladvel Cross Roads the car took “U” turn and reached towards the said 3 roads junction, a railway crossing was closed near C.N.Vidhyalaya, Kapadvanj. The driver of the car also collided with one motorcycle and as the crossing was closed, the driver stopped the car at the crossing. R.R.Cell cordoned the car in which two persons were travelling and on checking the said car, boxes of English liquor were found. Bhavarsing Sajjansing and Sohanlal Naranlal Prajapati were arrested with liquor worth Rs.1,70,400/. The FIR was registered being CR No.III61 of 2016 dated 30.5.2017 with Kapadvanj Town Police Station, District Kheda. The petitioner was Incharge of Kapadvanj Town Police Station and the offence had taken place in his jurisdiction. The show cause notice was issued on 23.2.2018 when he was asked to explain, that when he was Incharge of the said Police Station, why he did not collected the information about the case and he was negligent in his duty. The petitioner was Incharge of Kapadvanj Town Police Station and the offence had taken place in his jurisdiction. The show cause notice was issued on 23.2.2018 when he was asked to explain, that when he was Incharge of the said Police Station, why he did not collected the information about the case and he was negligent in his duty. Liquor worth Rs.1,70,400/was seized within the jurisdiction of the Kapadvanj Town Police Station by Raiding Party. So he was asked that why punishment of reprimand should not be imposed upon him. After the said notice was replied by the petitioner and after conclusion of Inquiry Proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty and he was reprimanded by Director General of Police (Gujarat State). When he had filed an appeal, he was informed by the Under Secretary that there is no provision of appeal against the punishment of reprimand. His appeal was not entertained. 4. It is contended by the learned senior counsel Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing for Mr. Sanat B. Pandya, the learned advocate for the petitioner that, the operation of raid was carried out on the basis of secret information received by the RR cell. It is contended that the so called liquor was not seized in its jurisdiction but, it was seized passing through his jurisdiction. It is also contended that if the case of the authority is accepted than, from the entry of the contraband into the State of Gujarat, from whose jurisdiction the contraband travelled, the raiding staff of each police station/post should have been held responsible. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged occurrence. It is vehemently contended that there is no adverse material against the petitioner and that fact is not considered by the respondent authorities. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Ahmed reported in AIR (1979) SC 1022, wherein, it is held as under : “Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. Vs. J. Ahmed reported in AIR (1979) SC 1022, wherein, it is held as under : “Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct [see Pierce v. Foster(1)]. A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle .(Indicator Newspapers) (2)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur(1), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza(2). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under: "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct". In industrial jurisprudence amongst others, habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct but in Management, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik(3), in the absence of standing orders governing the employee's undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as misconduct in the context of discharge being assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India(4), the manner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta(5), wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the loadsheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar instances of which a railway cabinman signals in a train on the same track where there is a stationary train causing headlong collision; a nurse giving intravenous injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil [see Navinchandra Shakerchand shah v. Manager, Ahmedabad Coop. Department Stores Ltd.(1)]. But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty. 5. Per contra, Ms. Megha Chittaliya, learned AGP has contended that the order passed by the respondent authority is correct and does not require any interference by this Court. She has contended that when the reprimand is granted, the Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee. She has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of rendered in case of Nareshchandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India reported in 2019 (15) SCC 786 wherein, it is held that the domain of the Court on issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. She has also relied upon the judgment rendered in case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bank of India reported in 2019 (15) SCC 786 wherein, it is held that the domain of the Court on issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. She has also relied upon the judgment rendered in case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. P.Gunasekaran reported in 2015(2) SCC 610 wherein, it is held that it is not open for the High Court go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with lesser punishment or different punishment. The High Court was not justified on the ground of proportionality of punishment. She has also relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Jayantilal Maganlal Sharma Retired Police Sub Inspector Vs. Superintendent of Police Mehsana, reported in 2019 (O) AIJELSC240029, wherein the same view is taken. 6. After considering rival submissions and considering the fact that the alleged contraband recovered from the accused were not stored in jurisdiction of the petitioner. The said contraband was passing through the jurisdiction of the petitioner. So, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in his duty and he had not taken proper care to implement Prohibition Act and in this regard, it is difficult to believe that lack of efficiency. It can be labelled as attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would not ipso facto constitute misconduct. 6.1 The objection taken by the learned AGP cannot sustain because the case of the petitioner is not on quantum of punishment but, whether the petitioner has committed misconduct or not, and if not, then the action on the part of the respondent authorities is unwarranted and so, I am of the view that this is a fit case where writ jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 6.2 According to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 'misconduct' means misconduct arising from ill motive; Act of negligence, error of judgment or innocent mistake, does not constitute such 'misconduct'. 6.3 In M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India and Ors. the Supreme Court held that: “Misconduct is said to be a vague and relative term. Literally it means a wrong conduct or improper conduct. 6.3 In M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India and Ors. the Supreme Court held that: “Misconduct is said to be a vague and relative term. Literally it means a wrong conduct or improper conduct. It has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term used having regard to the scope of the Act and the statute.” 6.4 The Apex Court further held that: “Every act or conduct or even error of judgment or negligent acts by higher judiciary per se does not amount to misbehaviour. Willful abuse of judicial office, willful misconduct in the office, corruption, lack of integrity or any other offence involving moral turpitude would be misbehaviour. Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of mense rea by the doer. Even administrative action or omissions too need accompaniment of mense rea. 'Misconduct' is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act and it differs from carelessness or negligence. The expression misconduct covers a large area of human conduct and the term has to be construed with reference to the subject and context in which it is used. The punishment can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded. The good and sufficient reasons means every error does not constitute the ground for imposition of the punishment. Error of judgment cannot be eliminated in all human affairs. Negligence in the performance of duty, error of judgment and an innocent mistake will not constitute misconduct unless it is actuated by illmotive and a willful act. A willful and intentional disobedience of the instruction of the superior authority will amount to misconduct. If the decision taken by the officer reflects that it has been taken with ulterior corrupt motive then it will, also, constitute 'misconduct* To constitute the misconduct while doing something the doer must know that he is wrong. An inadvertent violation of certain instructions of the superiors without any ulterior motive, would not amount to 'misconduct' for which the penalty can be Imposed unless the conduct is a calculated attempt to defy the order passed by the superiors or to violate the Instructions. So I do not find substance in the submission of learned AGP that there is violation of the notification which amounts to misconduct.” 6.5 It may be taken to be well settled now, that misconduct is not necessarily established by proving even culpable negligence. So I do not find substance in the submission of learned AGP that there is violation of the notification which amounts to misconduct.” 6.5 It may be taken to be well settled now, that misconduct is not necessarily established by proving even culpable negligence. Misconduct is something opposed to accident or negligence. It is the intentional doing of something which the doer knows to be wrong, or which he does recklessly, not caring what the result may be. 6.6 Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the inquiry held against the present petitioner for the alleged misconduct cannot sustain in eye of law. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in case of J Ahmed (Supra). I am of the view that the petitioner is wrongly imposed the punishment by the respondent authorities. Under the circumstances, the orders passed by the respondent authorities cannot stand in eye of law and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 5.10.2018 with all consequential benefits. 8. Petitioner accordingly stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.