Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1237 (ALL)

Mohammad Khalid Khan v. State Of U. P.

2002-09-10

RAKESH TIWARI

body2002
JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari 1. HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. THE petitioner was appointed as a Registration Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, vide order, dated 26.11.1984 passed by the District Registrar, Bijnor. At the relevant time, petitioner was posted in Sub-Registrar's Office, Nazibabad, district Bijnor. He was confirmed on the post of Registration Clerk, vide order, dated 11.1.1991. A complaint was received alleging that the petitioner has interpolated and made manipulations in the sale deed executed by Shri Ami Khan, who had sold his property in favour of Shah Nawaz Khan and Smt. Shahin Kausar by means of a sale deed, registered on 10.4.1990. 3. A preliminary enquiry was made in respect of the aforesaid complaint and after a prima facie case was established, the petitioner was served with an order of suspension passed by the District Registrar, dated 13.3.1991. A representation dated 18.7.1991, was made by the petitioner against the preliminary enquiry to the Inspector General of Registration, U. P., Allahabad, inter alia, stating that the enquiry report, dated 5.7.1991, had been submitted without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. It was cancelled by the Inspector General of Registration, U. P., Allahabad and a fresh enquiry was directed to be made. 4. IN the fresh enquiry, one Shri Darshan Lal was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After enquiry he submitted his enquiry report, dated 28.11.1991 and recommended reinstatement of the petitioner with full pay as charges levelled against the petitioner were not found to be established. Thereafter, some clarification was sought by the Inquiry Officer from the petitioner, vide letter dated 27.3.1992, which were submitted by him and again an enquiry report was submitted on 4.5.1992 in favour of the petitioner by Shri Darshan Lal to the Inspector General of Registration but no orders were passed and the petitioner was kept under suspension. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 27873 of 1992 before this Hon'ble Court on the ground that inspite of the enquiry report having been given in his favour he was illegally being continued under suspension. This Court by judgment and order, dated 11.8.1992 directed the respondents to pass final orders within one month of the service of the copy of the order of this Court. 5. This Court by judgment and order, dated 11.8.1992 directed the respondents to pass final orders within one month of the service of the copy of the order of this Court. 5. THE petitioner avers that on receipt of the judgment of this Court, dated 11.8.1992, the Inspector General of Registration became annoyed and prejudiced against him and by a letter dated 22.9.1992, the petitioner was directed to be present in his office on 26.9.1992 as the last opportunity of hearing. 6. IT is alleged that the petitioner presented himself as directed, but due to absence of the Inspector General of Registration, nothing was done in his case and signatures of the petitioner were taken on plain paper. IT is further alleged that the impugned order dated 30.9.1992 was passed by which the petitioner was illegally removed from service without any opportunity whatsoever before passing the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in Chandan Singh Rathi v. District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and another, 2002 (3) AWC 2284 : 2002 (48) ALR 392 (Paras 15, 16 and 17). He further relied upon the judgment in Gokul Prasad Mishra v. Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, Lalitpur and others, 2002 (3) AWC 2106 : 2002 (3) ESC (All) 147. Relying upon these decisions he contends that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the principles of natural justice have been violated. He states that even copies of the documents asked for by the petitioner were not supplied to him. 7. THESE cases do not help the petitioner as they were decided in their own peculiar facts and circumstances which are not akin to the case of the petitioner. 8. AT this stage the counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that for decision in this case oral and documentary evidence would have to be adduced. Admittedly this Court cannot take such exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to whether petitioner was present on the date fixed before the Inspector General of Registration for hearing or his signatures were taken on plain papers as alleged by him. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor established the prejudice caused by alleged non-supply of documents to him. 9. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor established the prejudice caused by alleged non-supply of documents to him. 9. IN these circumstances it would be proper to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy as in Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Union and others, 1991 (2) AWC 1005 : 1991 (63) FLR 478, it has been held that statutory remedy has to be exhausted before approaching this Court and in K. K. Srivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1977 SC 703 , the Apex Court has observed thus : "Where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy, the Court should keep its hand off." 10. IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy with the observation that in case the petitioner makes an application before the appropriate forum, the same be decided by the Tribunal preferably within a period of four months from the date the said application is made. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.