Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2292 (ALL)

Dharm Pal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2017-10-05

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. 1. Heard Sri Bhola Nath Yadav for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 1.8.2017 by which the petitioner has been suspended during disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and Tehsildar has been appointed as Inquiry Officer and the order of Collector dated 10.7.2017 by which the Collector has directed to take action against the petitioner as well as other responsible officers. 3. A perusal of the order of Collector dated 10.7.2017 shows that in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 initiated on the application of Kutubuddin and Salauddin sons of Azim Ullah, a report has been submitted by the petitioner recommending for correction of the record in respect of recording the names of the aforesaid persons over plot no. 26 A area 32 bigha and 419 A, area 9 bigha situated at village Katka , pargana Jhunsi, tehsil Phoolpur, distt. Allahabad, without examining the original records only on the basis of certified copy produced by the parties themselves. Thus the petitioner has not discharged his statutory duties under the law. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 39 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, report has to be submitted by the Tehsildar , who is responsible for wrong report as such responsibility is of the Tehsildar and not of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be suspended for the act of Tehsildar. 5. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner in this respect is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as admittedly the petitioner is sub-ordinate Revenue Officer posted under the Tehsildar for discharging statutory duties and if the Tehsildar has called for a report from the petitioner then it is duty of the petitioner to examine all the original records and submit a correct report and not in collusion with the interested parties submit an incorrect report. Thus on this ground neither the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner nor the suspension order is liable to be quashed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the impugned orders there is nothing to show that inquiry has been initiated or contemplated which is a condition precedent under Rule 4 of UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. Therefore the suspension order is void. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the impugned orders there is nothing to show that inquiry has been initiated or contemplated which is a condition precedent under Rule 4 of UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. Therefore the suspension order is void. 7. This argument is also not liable to be accepted inasmuch as although in the opening paragraph of the impugned order dated 1.8.2017 it has not been mentioned that inquiry has been contemplated or initiated against the petitioner but in the bottom, an Inquiry Officer has been appointed for preparing the charge sheet as well as conducting the inquiry against the petitioner. Thus this was merely a human error and in fact inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. 8. The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of UP v. Chandra Bose 2014(3) AWC 2642 , in which it has been held that the " the authority which passed the order of suspension acted at the dictates of the Minister and did not apply its mind independently as to whether an order of suspension was necessary. Ex Facie, the requirement of the proviso to Rule 4 (1) was not fulfilled. " 9. The aforesaid case law relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in this case inasmuch as in the present case disciplinary proceeding has been initiated on the basis of order passed by the Collector of the concerned District, who after conducting the full inquiry of the matter, has prima facie found the involvement of the petitioner in land grabbing. Therefore it cannot be said that disciplinary proceeding has been initiated without application of mind. So far as the suspension order is concerned, nothing can be said that it has been passed on the dictation of Collector alone, therefore suspension order is not liable to be quashed. 10. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that some other officers are also involved in the matter but no charge sheet has been issued against other officers, therefore inquiry cannot be initiated against the petitioner alone. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Sukhendra Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (6) SCC, 257. 11. 10. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that some other officers are also involved in the matter but no charge sheet has been issued against other officers, therefore inquiry cannot be initiated against the petitioner alone. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Sukhendra Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (6) SCC, 257. 11. The case of K. Sukhendra Reddy (supra) the suspension was set aside on the ground of inordinate delay and also on the ground that the inquiry against the other involved persons was not initiated. But in the present case inquiry has been initiated by order dated 1.8.2017 as such inordinate delay has not been occurred and the authorities may take action against the other responsible persons also. 12. So far as the argument that charge sheet has not been served upon the petitioner is concerned, the Tehsildar, who has been appointed as Inquiry Officer is directed to serve a copy of charge sheet upon the petitioner within a week, with the approval of Sub Divisional Officer and proceed with inquiry in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed.