S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was a lekhpal. His services were terminated on 2. 3. 1991 against which he filed this writ petition. Through interim order dated 13. 3. 1991, operation of the impugned termination or der was stayed. Under the said interim or der, petitioner continued to work. Thereaf ter, he retired and now he has also died and substituted by his legal representatives (substitution application has been allowed on 26. 11. 2008 ). 3. The allegation against the peti tioner was that while preparing the list of deserving candidates for allotment of land under the Management of Gaon Sabha for housing sites he did not follow the prefer ential criteria provided under section 122-C of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. Departmental pro ceedings were initiated against the peti tioner and enquiry officer submitted the report on 5. 1. 1991. The said report along with show cause notice dated 25. 1. 1991 was sent to the petitioner by S. D. O. , Badaun/ appointing authority of the petitioner. The said show cause notice along with enquiry report is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. Under section 3 (9) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, it is provided that land manage ment committee shall have the meaning assigned to it in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and under section 28-A of the latter Act, it is provided that Gramin Panchayat shall also be Land Management Committee and Pradhan and Up- pradhan shall be Chairman and Vice-chairman and lekhpal of the area shall be Secretary of Land Management Committee. 5. In the enquiry report, it is men tioned that under section 122-C (3) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act (as it stood at the rele vant time), it is provided that land vested in the State and under the Management of Gaon Sabha shall be allotted for housing purposes in the following order of prefer ence: 1. Agricultural labourer or village ar tisans residing in the village be longing to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Back ward Classes or general category living below poverty line. 2. Any other agricultural labourer or village artisans residing in the vil lage. 3. Any other person residing in the village and belonging to SC, ST or OBC or General category living below poverty line. 6. 2. Any other agricultural labourer or village artisans residing in the vil lage. 3. Any other person residing in the village and belonging to SC, ST or OBC or General category living below poverty line. 6. In the enquiry report, it is further mentioned that from perusal of resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 16. 7. 1989 and the list prepared by the petitioner lekhpal, it was clear that the petitioner had prepared the list of only those persons who had applied for allotment before the Pradhan. Enquiry officer held that from the said recital of the petitioner in the resolution and the list, it was clear that preference as provided un der the aforesaid section was not main tained and only the list of those persons was prepared who had applied before Pradhan for allotment. It is further men tioned that in the list against certain per sons, it is mentioned that they were resi dent of the same mandal (or circle) while under the aforesaid section, allotment can be made only to the resident of same vil lage. It is further mentioned that in the said list, petitioner lekhpal mentioned the names of some Muslims also against the category of SC, ST while only a Hindu or a Sikh can be member of SC and ST. It is also mentioned in the enquiry report that the profession of certain applicants had been shown to be weaving which is not included in the definition landless agricultural labour. It is also mentioned that if in the vil lage no person belonging to the preferential category was available, then it should have been mentioned in the Resolution and the list. 7. Some other minor charges regard ing Gaon Sabha property were also made against the petitioner, which were found proved. 8. As far as the main charge of al lotment to undeserving persons is concerned, it is mentioned in the report of the enquiry officer that irregularities or the il legalities in the preparation of the list of allottees applicants for allotment were ap parent from the perusal of the Resolution and the list prepared by petitioner lekhpal itself. 9. Firstly, lekhpal is only secretary of Land Management Committee and if the decision was taken by the Land Manage ment Committee, then action ought to have been taken against other members of the Land Management Committee also, which was not done. 10. 9. Firstly, lekhpal is only secretary of Land Management Committee and if the decision was taken by the Land Manage ment Committee, then action ought to have been taken against other members of the Land Management Committee also, which was not done. 10. The second more important aspect of the matter is that under section 122-C-2, it is provided that "land Management Committee may with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-division allot for the purposes of building of houses, to persons referred to sub-section (3) any land earmarked for abadi site. " 11. Obviously the allotment must have been made with the approval of S. D. O. (which may be either the S. D. O. who passed the punishment order against the petitioner or his predecessor ). Action should have also been taken against the S. D. O. on the ground that he had approved the proposal for allotment in favour of undeserving applicants/persons. From the resolution of allotment itself, it was clear that the applicants/recommendees did not deserve allotment under section 122-C (3) of the Act. Catching the small fries in the net and letting the sharks go is not the policy of law. In the following authority, the Su preme Court has held that if a decision taken by a Committee is found to be illegal and disciplinary proceedings are to be ini tiated then either proceedings should be initiated against all the members of the Committee or against none. 1. "bongaigaon Refinery and P. C. Ltd. v. Girish Chandra Sarmah, 2007 (57) AIC 118 (SC) = 2007 (115) FLR 4 (SC) = AIR 2007 SC 2860 . " 12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned termination order is set aside. Petition Allowed. .