Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1010 (MP)

RAM PRASAD MALVIYA v. STATE OF M P

2006-08-24

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition has been filed challenging the action of respondent No. 3, bandobast Officer, Shajapur to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet, Annexure A-1, dated 29-8-97. The consequential order of penalty, Annexure A-4, passed by Bandobast Officer, dated 17-9-98, has also been challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction. The appellate Authority has passed the order without taking note of the competency of the respondent No. 3 to pass the order, Annexure A-4. However, it is urged that the order, Annexure A-6, as passed by the Appellate Authority on 17-9-99 is also illegal and deserves to be quashed. ( 2. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed as revenue Inspector by the orders of the Collector of the district concerned. It is further a case of the petitioner that in M. P. Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the Collector is the Authority Competent to impose all the penalty on Revenue Inspector. The Settlement Officer is having no power, either to initiate the disciplinary proceeding, by issuing charge-sheet or to pass the consequential order of inflicting the penalty, therefore, entire action since initiation of the departmental inquiry till passing of the order of penalty is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further urged that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal as per Annexure A-6, by order dated 17-9- 99, without taking note of the aforesaid legal issue, therefore, the order, Annexure A-6, is also liable to be quashed. ( 3. ) PER contra, the Government has filed their return and it is set forth therein, that in exercise of the powers as conferred under Section 88 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the powers of the Collector have been delegated to the Settlement Officer vide notification, Annexure R-1, dated 23rd of June, 1993. In this notification the Collector, Dewas, has delegated the powers of the collector, Shajapur, which was amended by subsequent amendment dated 28-7-95, indicating the fact that in place of Dewas. it be read as Shajapur. It is further said that under Section 106 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, Collector is competent to appoint, regulate and performance of the work of the Revenue inspector and such powers are vested with the Settlement Officer as per notification, Annexures R-1 and R-2. it be read as Shajapur. It is further said that under Section 106 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, Collector is competent to appoint, regulate and performance of the work of the Revenue inspector and such powers are vested with the Settlement Officer as per notification, Annexures R-1 and R-2. Bearing such powers as conferred to respondent No. 3 under the notification, Annexures R-1 and R-2, the action has rightly been taken against the petitioner, to initiate the departmental inquiry by issuing charge-sheet, Annexure A-1, and to pass the final order in the disciplinary proceeding as per Annexure A-4. In view of the above submissions, it is urged that the action of the respondent No. 3 since initiation of the charge-sheet till passing of the final order by inflicting penalty, Annexure A-4, has rightly been passed. It is further urged that the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal after due consideration of the facts as narrated in the appeal, therefore, the interference by this Court is not permissible under the law. ( 4. ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the appointing Authority of the petitioner, as Revenue Inspector, is the Collector as per the provisions enumerated under Section 106 of the M. P. Land Revenue code. It is also not in dispute that a charge-sheet has been issued to him by settlement Officer, as per Annexure A-1, dated 29-8-97. The reply has been filed by the petitioner to the charge-sheet. Thereafter as per Annexure A-2, dated 18-11-97, Settlement Officer itself appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry in the matter. After conduction of the inquiry by such enquiry Officer who has appointed by the Settlement Officer, and relying the report of the Enquiry Officer, order of penalty, Annexure A-4, has been passed by him. The Settlement Officer has inflicted the penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. Such penalty is major penalty under the provisions of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 M. P. L. S. R. 480. ( 5. Such penalty is major penalty under the provisions of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 M. P. L. S. R. 480. ( 5. ) THE Appellate Authority has decided the appeal as per Annexure a-6, vide order dated 17-9-99, without taking note of the question of competent of the Settlement Officer. ( 6. ) TO deal with the contention with respect to the powers to initiate and finalize the disciplinary proceedings of the Revenue Inspector by settlement Officer by virtue of the notification Annexures R-1 and R-2, the basic provisions of Section 88 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code is required to take note. Because these notifications have been issued under Section 88 of the code. However, Section 88 of M. P. Land Revenue Code is reproduced as under:- "88. Power to transfer duty of maintaining maps and records to settlement Officer.- When a local area is under revenue survey, the duty of maintaining the maps and records may, under the orders of the State Government, be transferred from Collector to the settlement Officer, who shall thereupon exercise all the powers conferred on the Collector in any of the provisions in Chapters IX and XVIII. " ( 7. ) BARE perusal of the language of Section 88 of the Code, it is apparent that the State Government is competent to transfer the powers of the collector to the Settlement Officer, but, only with respect to duty of maintaining maps and records when a local area is under revenue survey. In such contingency the Settlement Officer shall there upon exercise all the powers conferred on the collector in any of the provisions in Chapters IX and XVIII. Chapter IX of the m. P. Land Revenue Code deals with "maintaining of the land records" and chapter XVIII deals with "rights in occupied land and its produce". Thus, it is apparent that as per Section 88 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code powers of the collector, to exercise the disciplinary powers cannot be transferred even by the state Government, to the Settlement Officers in exercise of powers under section 88 of the Code. Thus, it is apparent that as per Section 88 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code powers of the collector, to exercise the disciplinary powers cannot be transferred even by the state Government, to the Settlement Officers in exercise of powers under section 88 of the Code. In that view of the matter, notification issued, vide annexures R-1 and R-2 by the State Government delegating the powers of the collector, Shajapur to the Settlement Officer, Shajapur, having nothing to do in the matter of initiation of departmental proceedings and to pass the final orders to inflict the penalty against the petitioner by the Settlement Officer. ( 8. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion it is apparent that powers of the collector, can be exercised by the Settlement Officer under the notification, annexure R-1 to the extent as indicated therein. The State Government can not delegate the power of disciplinary proceedings which are vested with the collector to Settlement Officer in exercise of power of Section 88 of the Code and by issuing the notifications. Particularly when such powers are vested with the Collector in view of the Schedule as specified under the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. ( 9. ) IN view of above discussions, if the Government want to delegate the disciplinary power of the Collector to Settlement Officer, then such power, can be delegated by issuing the notification under the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 or to declare him the appointing Authority under Section 100 of the Code, but no such power to initiate disciplinary proceeding or to inflict penalty can be conferred under section 88 of the Land Revenue Code. Thus, plea as taken by the respondents, with respect to delegation of power of Collector to Settlement Officer under section 88 of the Code cannot be accepted. ( 10. ) IN that view of the matter the action of the Settlement Officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet vide Annexure A-1, dated 29-8-97 and appointment of the Enquiry Officer vide annexure A-2, dated 18-11-97 and the order of inflicting the penalty dated 17-9-98, Annexure A-4, passed by the Settlement Officer, is nullity, illegal and without jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the order, Annexure A-6, dated 17-9-99, passed by the Appellate Authority, without taking note of the basic provision of the law, is also liable to be quashed. It is to be held that once the initial order is illegal and without jurisdiction, then order passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming such, illegal order, is void. ( 11. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Initiation of the action against the petitioner since issuance of the charge-sheet till infliction of the penalty, vide Annexure A-4, dated 17-9-98, passed by the Settlement Officer, Shajapur, is hereby quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction. The order of Appellate Authority, Annexure A-6, dated 17-9-99, is also quashed. It is further directed that if the order of penalty has been implemented against the petitioner, the same be treated as honest and the consequential benefit be directed to the released in favour of the petitioner. It is further directed that the period of suspension be treated on duty and the consequential orders granting such benefit be also passed by the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.