Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1051 (RAJ)

Ashraf Ali v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-17

ARUN MISHRA, KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Asraf Ali has filed this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6091/2007 dated 13.11.2007 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ of the appellant. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this intra court appeal are that the appellant was served with a charge sheet dated 23.12.2003 levelling the allegations regarding misuse of his office by purchasing 4.61 hectors of agricultural land comprising in muraba No.105/359 of Chak No.3 MNWM in the name of one Gopal Ram. The other allegation levelled against him was that he formed a gang with some other persons un-authorisedly and entered into the said land and forcefully took over its possession. 3. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted its report on 03.04.2006 and after a lapse of three years, another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by making a minor amendment in it vide order dated.02.12.2006 only the number of the muraba was changed. The petitioner appellant challenged the order of issuing of the amended charge sheet. 4. The respondent filed a detailed reply. In the writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.11.2007 dismissed the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that when once the petitioner- appellant was exonerated by the enquiry officer, the respondent could not have issued the amended charge sheet to him because in the earlier charge sheet the muraba number was wrongly mentioned and thus the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, suffers from irregularity and infirmity, as for the same charge, two enquiries cannot be conducted by the disciplinary authority. 6. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the averments made in the writ petition and the order of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. 8. The factual aspect of the matter remains that there were allegations against the petitioner- appellant while he was holding the post of Patwari for purchasing the Government land through agreement in the name of other person of his choice and then he entered the land unauthorised and forcibly took the possession. 8. The factual aspect of the matter remains that there were allegations against the petitioner- appellant while he was holding the post of Patwari for purchasing the Government land through agreement in the name of other person of his choice and then he entered the land unauthorised and forcibly took the possession. It is correct that in the earlier charge sheet the muraba No.105/359 at chak No.03 MNWM was mentioned but no such muraba was situated and the only number of the muraba was 106/339. The Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order dated 02.12.2006 Annx. P/6, has corrected the mistake and issued the amended charge sheet. 9. The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the conclusion of the first enquiry, a second enquiry was initiated against him by the Disciplinary Authority, does not carry any force because the Collector (Land Records), Sriganganagar ordered to issue the amended chare he sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules by amending the correct number of muraba. The learned Single Judge, considered all these aspects of the case and observed that looking to the gravity of the charges, the typographical error or some mistake at some level regarding correction of number of muraba, it is not proper for the court to enter into any indulgence in the writ petition. 10. We are also of the considered view that only on the basis of typographical error there is no ground to enter into any indulgence, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Disciplinary Authority was having the power to disapprove the report of the enquiry officer and he was having the power to reconsider the report itself and come to its own conclusion. In this case the Disciplinary Authority has not gone on merits of the report but after consideration found difference and has ordered denovo enquiry after correcting the error. We see no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Accordingly, the special appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge is maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******