Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 144 (JHR)

Sitaram Mehta v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2013-01-29

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The original petitioner has been substituted by his legal heirs on account of his death during the pendency of the writ application. The original petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.7.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag which was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribag vide order dated 6.10.1987 passed in Service Appeal No. 15 of 1985. The petitioner's revision directed against the aforesaid orders before the Board of Revenue also stood dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1995 passed in the case no. 69/21-8/1988. All these 3 orders are under challenge in the present writ application. 3. According to the original petitioner, he was working as Anchal Amin having appointed in Keredari block under Dist. Hazaribag on 15.10.1957, subsequently transferred to Ramgarh block in December 1967 and again, thereafter, took charge of Karmachari at Ramgarh Anchal , Hazaribag in December, 1977. The petitioner was in-charge of collection of revenue of Halka No. 2 comprising 12 villages where after he was transferred to Ithkhori Anchal in March 1982 and from 3.1.1983 he was placed under suspension for issuing rent receipts illegally to different raiyats in respect of valuable lands of the Government. On 28.9.1983 he was served with charge sheet and asked to show cause as to why he should not be held guilty for the alleged misconduct . He presented himself before the Inquiry Officer, who, thereafter, proceeded to make recommendation for removal of the petitioner from his service, which according to learned counsel is contrary to the settled law. The petitioner was denied opportunity and never given a copy of the documents which formed the basis of the alleged charge for which he requested on three occasion before the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was served upon him on 7.5.1984, where after, order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag which according to the him is cryptic as well as erroneous. The petitioner has also made grievance that the Appellate Authority in his order dated 6.10.1987 has failed to deal with the specific grounds of the appeal made by him which is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal & others Vrs. Kharak Singh reported in 2008(8) SCC 236 . The petitioner has also made grievance that the Appellate Authority in his order dated 6.10.1987 has failed to deal with the specific grounds of the appeal made by him which is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal & others Vrs. Kharak Singh reported in 2008(8) SCC 236 . Counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the revisional order on the ground that although the Revisional Authority observed that the Circle Officer was also responsible for issuing orders of mutation in respect of the same lands for which petitioner was held to be guilty for issuing rent receipt, but the petitioner has been solely made responsible for the same, although he had acted upon the orders of the competent authority. 4. Respondent- State have appeared and file their counter affidavit. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was a Karmachari in the concerned Halka in Ramgarh Anchal at the relevant point of time when he had issued illegal rent receipt in favour of several persons in respect of 'gair majaruwa malik ' and 'kaisar-e-hind' land of several villages of Ramgarh Anchal without permission of the competent authority. Relevant details of the rent receipts in respect of the persons named were indicated in form 'Ka' containing the charges issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause. The petitioner's show cause was considered by the Inquiry Officer and he found his explanation wholly unsatisfactory. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that documents which were the basis of charges were made available to the petitioner in order to submit his response and there was no requirement for adducing any oral document for that purpose. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after having taken into account the show cause reply of the petitioner as also the findings of the inquiry report has proceeded to pass the impugned order of dismissal as he found that the misconduct of the petitioner deserve the punishment of dismissal from service as he committed serious errors in the matter of issuance of rent receipts illegally in respect of government lands in favour of private persons. It is further submitted that a perusal of appellate order also discloses that Appellate Authority has taken into account all contentions made by the appellant- petitioner and the charges leveled against him were found to be true after proper opportunity and show cause to the petitioner – employee. The charges involved corruption and moral turpitude for which appropriate punishment has been awarded. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue - Revisional Authority has also considered the contentions of the petitioner in detail and upheld the impugned order of dismissal confirmed by the Appellate Authority in view of the gravity of the charges found to have been established against the petitioner- employee. It is further stated that the petitioner- employee, who was Anchal Karmachari at the relevant point of time cannot be absolved of his responsibility to make correct recommendation in respect of mutation on the basis of which the Circle Officer passes order for issuance of rent receipt and mutation in respect of any person. Therefore, the Board of Revenue has rejected the said ground made by the petitioner in his revision application. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have not simply acted upon the basis of the recommendation made in the inquiry report but also issued second show cause notice enclosing inquiry report, giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself against the proposed punishment. Therefore, the order of the disciplinary authority does not suffers from non application of mind or having acted simply upon the recommendation of the inquiry officer. Further, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Respondents have further submitted that the three authorities i.e. Disciplinary, Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities have arrived at a concurrent findings of fact and petitioner has failed to make out any flaw so as to invite interference by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant documents including the impugned orders. From the facts which has been brought on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was served charge sheet in the prescribed format under form 'Ka' giving details of at least 4 charges in respect of issuance of rent receipts in favour of several persons for the lands which were either kaiser-e-hind or gairmajurwa. From the facts which has been brought on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was served charge sheet in the prescribed format under form 'Ka' giving details of at least 4 charges in respect of issuance of rent receipts in favour of several persons for the lands which were either kaiser-e-hind or gairmajurwa. These charges relates to the period when the petitioner was posted as Anchal Karmachari in the Ramgarh Anchal for which rent receipts were issued. Petitioner's show cause is also annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner in respect of the first charge has made out a case regarding the lands in question that rent receipts were already issued in favour of another person in the year 1955-56, where after successor rent receipts were issued in case no. 485/76-77. However, petitioner was required to ascertain in the case no. 485/76-77 as to whether the property was kaiser-e-hind or gairmajurwa land or actually belonging in the name of persons before blindly proceeding to issue rent receipts . In respect of the second charge as well the petitioner has made out a case that the original tenant had not objected to the issuance of 'parcha' in respect of the same. Here again the petitioner was required to inquire into the aforesaid facts before acting only on the presumption that the original tenant had not objected to the said facts. Petitioner's explanation in respect of other charges are also similar in nature which, however, was found not acceptable to the Inquiry Officer and on his report second show cause notice was issued along with the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner- employee to submit his response. The Disciplinary Authority having found the explanation not satisfactory proceeded to pass the order of dismissal of the petitioner vide impugned order contained at annexure-2 as the same related to serious charges of issuance of rent receipts in favour of private persons by the petitioner without verifying the facts. The Appellate Authority in his detailed order has taken into account the contentions of the petitioner and come to a finding that the impugned order of dismissal was passed after due opportunity to him to peruse all the relevant documents on the basis of which he was to file his show cause. The Appellate Authority in his detailed order has taken into account the contentions of the petitioner and come to a finding that the impugned order of dismissal was passed after due opportunity to him to peruse all the relevant documents on the basis of which he was to file his show cause. As the charges related to the unauthorized issuance of rent receipts by the appellant , the registers and documents were adequate to either prove or disprove the guilt of the appellant and the examination of the witnesses were not required for the aforesaid purpose. As such, the Inquiry Officer had found charges on four specific counts to be proved against the petitioner- employee and the Appellate Authority, thereafter confirmed the order. It further appears from perusal of the revisional order that the contentions of the petitioner have been taken into account and it has been found that the findings recorded by the appellate authority does not suffers from flaw, so far as issuance of rent receipt in respect of 4 persons named in the charge sheet are concerned in relation to government land. The Revisional Authority has also found that petitioner- employee could not have been absolved from the responsibility of inquiring into the matter and make recommendation in respect of the village under the halka in which he was karmachari, though order of mutation was passed by the Circle Officer. Though petitioner has made out a case that Inquiry Officer has made recommendation while submitting his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has not acted simply upon the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer but have considered the second show cause of the petitioner independently on the question of proposal of punishment and, thereafter the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have arrived at a concurrent finding while affirming the impugned order of dismissal. 6. The petitioner has failed to make out the case of any perversity in the concurrent findings of the facts as well as in the procedures followed by the competent authorities in the departmental proceeding on the basis of which the impugned orders have been passed. Therefore, the impugned orders does not require any interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.