Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 531 (ALL)

MAN MOHAN SWAROOP v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-02-28

DINESH GUPTA, RAKESH TIWARI

body2012
Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.:- We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to decide the review/representation of the petitioner dated 16.08.1996 as also to issue writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25.9.1986 and 30.6.1992 passed by the respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 11.03.1950; that the petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar in the year 1956 and was subsequently confirmed on the said post in the year 1961; that the petitioner was given charge of Deputy Collector and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1974; that on 5.6.1984 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner levelling the only charge that when he was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra in the year 1975-78 some land was a acquired for 220 KV sub station and for staff quarters and while preparing the award in case No.268, 270 and 279 the sale deed dated 5.8.1974 was taken as exemplar and submitted the proposal of award to the Board of Revenue for a sum of Rs.11,93,699.25 paise; that on objection by the Board of Revenue subsequently another proposal was made by the petitioner as directed by the Board of Revenue and sent the same for approval for an amount of Rs.6,30,550.37 paise; that on 17.06.1984 the Regional Food Commissioner, Agra was appointed Enquiry Officer who called explanation of the petitioner; that on 25.06.1984 the petitioner demanded the relevant documents relating to the case, which were not given to him ; that on 27.08.1984 an interim explanation was submitted by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer annexing therewith the photostat copies of the judgment of L.A.Case No.70 of 1978 decided by Vith A.D.J., Agra on 9.3.1984 and L.A.Case No.48 of 1978 decided by Vth A.D.J. Agra on 7.10.1983; that on 25.9.1986 respondent no.2 passed an order of reduction of pension of the petitioner by 10% against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected on 30.6.1992. The petitioner filed a review application but no decision has been taken on the same. The petitioner filed a review application but no decision has been taken on the same. The petitioner's contention is that the punishment has been made merely on probability; the award proposed was subject to approval of the Board of Revenue as per government order; on the objection of the Board of Revenue the petitioner revised the award as per directions and as such there was no mis-conduct on his part; that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal; that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution as no reasonable opportunity was given and that the punishment given to the petitioner deducting 10% of pension is illegal as the District Judge in reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made award @ Rs.5/- per sq. yard which was initially proposed by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue for approval and the said order has become final as no appeal was filed by the State. The respondents have denied the allegations and submitted that no ground was made out by the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed. The appeal filed by the petitioner being treated as representation ( as no appeal was maintainable) was also rejected by a reasoned order. We are unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents. From the facts stated above, it is clear that initially a proposal was sent by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue and after advice of the Board of Revenue another exemplar was applied and a revised award was sent as per direction of the Board of Revenue. It is also important to mention here that the said award was challenged subsequently by the claimants before the District Judge and the District Judge in reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, enhanced the award to Rs.5/- per square yard which was initially submitted by the petitioner. Thus, in fact there was no loss to the government. It is only hypothetical observation of the enquiry officer that if the proposal of the petitioner was accepted by the Board of Revenue there would be a loss to the government. Thus, in fact there was no loss to the government. It is only hypothetical observation of the enquiry officer that if the proposal of the petitioner was accepted by the Board of Revenue there would be a loss to the government. While, in fact the award as proposed by the petitioner was approved by the District Judge u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the whole enquiry and the order of the disciplinary authority was based merely on probability and imagination and the deduction of 10% pension was illegal and not sustainable in law. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 25.09.1986 and 30.6.1992 passed by respondent no.1 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed not to deduct 10% of the pension. The respondents are further directed to refund 10% deducted amount of pension to the petitioner along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum.