Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2364 (ALL)

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-10-12

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. and Sri Rajesh Yadav, for respondent-5. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 07.03.1995, imposing punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner and appellate authority dated 21.04.2006, dismissing the appeal and 22.04.2014, dismissing revision of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lekhpal and at the relevant time, he was posted at village Mani Majra, hamlet of village Sahajpur Jat, tahsil Nakur, district Saharanpur. Sarwar, Pradhan of the village moved an application before Sub-Divisional Officer dated 03.08.1994 alleging that Land Management Committee of the village passed a resolution dated 09.11.1993, for allotment of vacant land to 26 landless agricultural labourers of the village. The petitioner, being Secretary of Land Management Committee prepared a file relating to allotment of land and sent a report dated 07.12.1993 to Sub-Divisional Officer, for approval of aforesaid resolution. In this report, by fabricating resolution, cutting and overwriting, he has shown 48 persons being proposed allottees. Which was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 14.12.1993. The petitioner mutated the names of the allottees (including the persons whose names were added by fabricating the resolution) on 08.02.1994, in khatauni. Thereafter, he un-authorizedly retained the record relating to allotment with him. 4. On the aforesaid complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Revenue Inspector, who found the petitioner as guilty of fabricating resolution of gaon sabha, preparing a forged file relating to allotment of land showing 48 proposed allottees in place of 26 allottees for whom, resolution was passed on 09.11.1993 and retaining file relating to allotment after 08.02.1994. In the meantime, the petitioner deposited the record relating to allotment in tahsil on 16.08.1994. Sub-Divisional Officer, by his order dated 17.08.1994, initiated a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, suspended him and appointed Tahsildar as Inquiry Officer. 5. Inquiry Officer framed three charges against the petitioner and after its approval by Sub-Divisional Officer served charge sheet upon the petitioner on 26.10.1994, along with other relevant documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.11.1994. In reply, the petitioner has denied the charges. In reply to Charge-1, he has admitted that in pursuance of resolution dated 09.11.1993, he had prepared file relating to allotment of land in favour of 48 persons. The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.11.1994. In reply, the petitioner has denied the charges. In reply to Charge-1, he has admitted that in pursuance of resolution dated 09.11.1993, he had prepared file relating to allotment of land in favour of 48 persons. He stated that Land Management Committee in its meeting dated 09.11.1993 passed resolution for allotment of land to 48 persons. He deposited Register relating to resolution dated 09.11.1993, in the office of Tahsildar, after amaldaramad. In reply to Charge-2, he has denied of fabricating resolution, cutting and overwriting it and showing 48 persons being proposed allottees by overwriting. In reply to Charge-3, he has denied retaining record, relating to allotment after 08.02.1994. In the end, he has stated that still if there is any mistake, he expresses his regret therefor and his case be considered sympathetically and he be reinstated in service. He assured that in future he shall not commit any such mistake. 6. Tahsildar/Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 19.12.1994. Inquiry Officer found that in reply to Charge-1, the petitioner has admitted that in pursuance of resolution dated 09.11.1993, he had prepared file relating to allotment of land in favour of 48 persons. The petitioner produced a Register relating to resolution dated 09.11.1993, in which first resolution was for allotment of land in favour of 48 persons, which was passed. The Pradhan has also produced original Register of gaon sabha in which third resolution was for allotment of land in favour of 26 persons, which was passed. This resolution was written on page 38 of the Register and thereafter pages 39 to 108 were blank. Thus no question was arose for preparing a new Register as such Register produced by the petitioner was a fabricated register. In file relating to allotment of land scratching and overwriting was apparent, which in place of 26 persons, names of 48 persons have been mentioned. Registrar Kanoongo, in his report proved that file relating to allotment was deposited by the petitioner on 16.08.1994 although amaldaramad was made on 28.02.1994 directly in khatauni. He found charges against the petitioner were proved. 7. On receipt of Inquiry Report, Sub-Divisional Officer issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner on 14.02.1995. Registrar Kanoongo, in his report proved that file relating to allotment was deposited by the petitioner on 16.08.1994 although amaldaramad was made on 28.02.1994 directly in khatauni. He found charges against the petitioner were proved. 7. On receipt of Inquiry Report, Sub-Divisional Officer issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner on 14.02.1995. According to the petitioner he had filed his reply on 02.03.1995, stating that neither in inquiry was made from Sarwar, Pradhan or Members of Land Management Committee nor from any officer and the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Sub-Divisional Officer, in the impugned order dated 07.02.1995 has mentioned that the petitioner has not given any reply to second show cause notice dated 14.02.1995, before passing the order. He was satisfied with the findings of Inquiry Officer. He found that the petitioner, being a government servant has fabricated records and thereby got land of Land Management Committee allotted to the persons for whom no resolution was passed as such maximum punishment was liable to be imposed upon him. He awarded punishment to the petitioner for termination from service. 8. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order on 01.07.1995. Additional Collector (Executive) by his order dated 21.04.2006, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-A No. 20469 of 2007) against the aforesaid order. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that in the proceeding for cancellation of patta as approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 14.12.1993, Additional Collector by his order dated 10.01.2000, cancelled the pattas. Allottees filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 41 of 1999-2000), before Board of Revenue U.P., which was allowed on 16.03.2005 and order of Additional Collector was set aside. As pattas have been upheld as such for preparing file relating to patta and producing it for approval before Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner cannot be terminated from service. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of revision within one month raising aforesaid point as well as ground that oral inquiry was not done by Inquiry Officer as such inquiry is vitiated and Inquiry Report dated 19.12.1994 was illegal. 9. The petitioner, instead of filing a revision before higher authority, filed it before the Collector on 09.12.2013. The Collector, by her order dated 22.04.2014 dismissed, the revision. 9. The petitioner, instead of filing a revision before higher authority, filed it before the Collector on 09.12.2013. The Collector, by her order dated 22.04.2014 dismissed, the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that no oral evidence was recorded by Inquiry Officer, is concerned, the main charge against the petitioner was Charge-1 that by fabricating resolution dated 09.11.1993, cutting and overwriting in it, the petitioner had shown 48 persons being proposed allottees although resolution was in favour of 26 persons only and on this fabricated file the petitioner had secured approval of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.12.1993. In reply to Charge-1, the petitioner has admitted that in pursuance of resolution dated 09.11.1993, he had prepared file relating to allotment of land and produced it for approval of Sub-Divisional Officer, which was approved on 14.12.1993. According to the petitioner, resolution dated 09.11.1993 was in favour of 48 persons. Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner produced a Register relating to resolution dated 09.11.1993, in which first resolution was for allotment of land in favour of 48 persons, which was passed. The Pradhan has also produced original Register of gaon sabha in which third resolution was for allotment of land in favour of 26 persons, which was passed. This resolution was written on page 38 of the Register and thereafter pages 39 to 108 were blank. Thus no question arose for preparing a new Register as such Register produced by the petitioner was a fabricated register. Original Register relating to meeting of Land Management Committee remains with the Pradhan. The petitioner being Secretary of Land management Committee has to prepare (i) a list of persons selected for allotment of land in ZA Form-57-B, (ii) a certificate of admission to the land in ZA Form 58 and (iii) a counterpart in ZA From 58- A, according to Rule 176 (1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. Under Rule 176 (3), Lekhpal along with his certificate and a copy of the proceeding of the meeting of Land Management Committee in which decision for allotment was taken and papers prepared under Rule 176 (1) has to produce before Assistant Collector. Under Rule 176 (3), Lekhpal along with his certificate and a copy of the proceeding of the meeting of Land Management Committee in which decision for allotment was taken and papers prepared under Rule 176 (1) has to produce before Assistant Collector. The Original Register relating to meeting of Land Management Committee can never be in custody of the petitioner. As such it is proved that the petitioner in order to justify his fabricated file relating to allotment of land has also fabricated a original Register relating to meeting of Land Management Committee. Charge-1 is proved from documentary evidence. Oral evidence in this respect is not very material. 11. Supreme Court in SBI v. Narendra Kumar Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740 , held that the charges levelled against the charged officer and also the materials produced by the Bank because some evidence is necessary to establish the charges. In some cases, proof may only be documentary and in some cases oral. The requirement of proof depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellant Bank in this case has succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against the delinquent officer and was rightly dismissed from service which called for no interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The order of Disciplinary Authority is not liable to be set aside only on the ground that oral evidence was not recorded by Inquiry Officer. 13. So far as order of Board of Revenue U.P., dated 16.03.2005, allowing Revision No. 41 of 1999-2000 and setting aside the order of Additional Collector canceling the pattas is concerned, a perusal of the order dated 16.03.2005 shows that revision was allowed only on the ground that under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the Collector alone has jurisdiction to cancel the patta. Thus the pattas were not upheld on merit. No finding has been recorded in respect of fabrication made by the petitioner while getting approval of Sub-Divisional Officer on 14.12.1993. In departmental proceeding the petitioner has been held guilty of fabricating resolution and other papers for allotment of land and thereby he got pattas in favour of 48 persons approved although resolution was passed only for grant of patta in favour of 26 persons. In departmental proceeding the petitioner has been held guilty of fabricating resolution and other papers for allotment of land and thereby he got pattas in favour of 48 persons approved although resolution was passed only for grant of patta in favour of 26 persons. The judgment of Board of Revenue U.P. is absolutely silent on this point as such it does not help the petitioner. 14. In view of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.