Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1398 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal Goyal v. The State of Rajasthan

2002-08-08

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 11.4.2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the order dated 9.3.1995 (Annex.3) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) by which penalty of stoppage of one grade increment was imposed on the petitioner without cumulative effect and the order dated 19.8.1998 (Annex.6) passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent No.1) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 25.11.2000 (Annex.7) by which review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC on 19.4.1957 and thereafter he was selected to the post of Inspector, Land records and joined as such on 24.7.1967 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Sadar Kanungo on 10.11.1976 and then as Tehsildar on 4.6.1983 and he stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.4.1987. (ii) That when the petitioner was working as Tehsildar and was posted at Banswara, he was served a charge-sheet dated 15.7.1992 (Annex.1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958. (iii) That In the charge-sheet dated 15.7.1992 (Annex.1) two charges were levelled against the petitioner which are as under: (i) Charge No. 1 was that the petitioner had verified mutation No. 911 on 29.12.1989 while working as Tehsildar, Banswara. That mutation was entered in pursuance of order of Subdivisional Officer, Banswara dated 16.8.1989. It was alleged that the mutation was wrongly entered by the petitioner as the land in question belonged to a Schedule Caste person. (ii) Charge No. 2 was that orders of land conversion dated 27.4.1989 (4 in number) and orders dated 24.5.1989 and 24.5.1989 were sent to the petitioner and the same were to be entered, but they were kept unattended and thus this act of the petitioner showed negligence on his part. (iv) Reply to the charge-sheet (Annex.1) dated 15.7.1992 was filed by the petitioner. (v) That the Board of Revenue through order dated 3.9.1995 (Annex.3) found both the charges proved against the petitioner and imposed penalty as stated above. (iv) Reply to the charge-sheet (Annex.1) dated 15.7.1992 was filed by the petitioner. (v) That the Board of Revenue through order dated 3.9.1995 (Annex.3) found both the charges proved against the petitioner and imposed penalty as stated above. (vi) Aggrieved from that order dated 3.9.1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Secretary, Revenue Department through its order dated 19.8.1998 (Annex.6) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. (vii) Against the order dated 19.8.1998, the petitioner also filed a review petition which was also dismissed through order dated 25.11.2000 (Annex.7). Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer. 3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their main submission is that the charges were rightly found proved against the petitioner. 4. I have heard both and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner made entry in the mutation as per order of Sub Divisional Officer, Banswara dated 16.8.1989 and in compliance of that order, the petitioner made mutation entries. Therefore by making compliance of order issued by the SDO, if the petitioner has made entries in the mutation proceedings, it cannot be said that he has committed any mistake or his act amounts to misconduct towards his duties as SDO is superior officer and the orders passed by him were to be complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, findings of charge No. 1 are erroneous one and against all canons of law and thus, the same cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the findings on charge No. 1 cannot be sustained. 6. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned, through order dated 9.3.1995 (Annex.3), the Board of Revenue found supervisory negligence on the part of the petitioner on the ground that no doubt the papers were received in the office of Tehsildar by the employees, but since the petitioner was Supervisory officer, he should have seen those papers and they should have been sent to the concerned authority in time and by not doing so, he was found negligent and charge No. 2 was found proved. 7. 7. In my opinion, in the office of Tehsildar, many papers are received and they are kept by the concerned officer/clerk and if in such circumstances, they are not sent to the concerned authority in time, the person incharge i.e. the petitioner in the case in his capacity as Tehsildar cannot be held liable for all the acts or omissions committed by other employees. Hence, the findings of charge No. 2 are also perverse one and because of this reason, the charge No. 2 cannot be found to be proved against the petitioner. 8. It may be stated here that in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not function as court of appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, but where the findings are utterly perverse and leading to manifest injustice, the High Court can interfere with the same. Since in the present case, the findings of the concerned authorities are palpably perverse one, that is why, in this writ petition, they are being interfered with. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 9.3.1995 (Annex.3), 19.8.1998 (Annex.6) and 25.11.2000 (Annex.7) are liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.3.1995 (Annex.3), passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 19.8.1998 (Annex.6) passed by the the respondent No. 1 and the order 25.11.2000 (Annex.7) are set aside with all consequential benefits as if these orders were never passed against the petitioner.Cost made easy.Writ Petition Allowed-Penalty Set Aside. *******