ORDER : 1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, is challenging order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, (‘Administrative Tribunal’ for short) dismissing his Application No.5454/2013. 2. We have heard Shri M.S.Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.Ashwathappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioner was posted as Tahsildar, Srinivaspura, during 2001-2004. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a memo dated 18.02.2010 inter alia imputing that improper khatha changes were effected and irregular land grants were recommended by him. A departmental enquiry was conducted by the Regional Commissioner and the charges were held to be proved. By an order dated 27.08.2013, petitioner was dismissed from service, which, he unsuccessfully challenged before the Administrative Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his application by the Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The principal contention urged by Shri M.S.Bhagwat, learned advocate for the petitioner is that, all the orders passed by petitioner were in discharge of his official duties, as a quasijudicial authority. Any person, if aggrieved by such quasijudicial order/s, is at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. No disciplinary action can be initiated, alleging misconduct against a civil servant, in respect of any order passed by him in discharge of his duties as a quasijudicial authority. 5. Adverting to the charges leveled, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that all six charges levelled against the petitioner are in respect of orders passed by him in exercise of powers conferred upon him as a Tahsildar. Therefore, the order of penalty is unsustainable in law. 6. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 566 and contended that, in the instant case, no finding is recorded that the petitioner was guilty of conducting himself in an illegal manner ‘willfully’. 7. Opposing the petition, Shri D.Ashwathappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that in respect of all six charges, the Enquiry Officer has recorded his findings. He submitted that charge No.6 is a grave charge in which, the petitioner has recommended grant of 134 acres 18 guntas of forest land and the same was wholly impermissible. 7. Opposing the petition, Shri D.Ashwathappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that in respect of all six charges, the Enquiry Officer has recorded his findings. He submitted that charge No.6 is a grave charge in which, the petitioner has recommended grant of 134 acres 18 guntas of forest land and the same was wholly impermissible. He argued that the petitioner had conducted himself in a manner, unbecoming of a civil servant by passing reckless orders. He placed reliance on four authorities. Thus, supporting the impugned order, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused material papers on record. 9. The six charges levelled against petitioner read as follows: “Charge No.1 When Sri E.Ramakrishnapa, Section Officer, Karnataka Government Secretariat (K.G.S) Bangalore was working as Tahsildar, of Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, after demise of Sri V.Appaiah Son of Venkataramana, resident of Avalakuppa Village Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar Dist, has done the Khatha of lands as under: 1 005 out of 0.10 guntas of Sy.No.8/2 2 005 ½ out of 0.11 guntas of Sy.No.28 3 025 ½ out of 1.11 Acres of Sy.No.35/1 4 00 ¼ out of 0.1 ½ of Sy.No.41/1 5 00 ½ out of 1.11 Acres of Sy.No.35/1 6 006 ¾ out of 0.13 ½ of Sy.No.43 7 0.053/4 out of 011 ½ of Sy.No.45/3 8 005 ¾ out of 0.11 ½ of Sy.No.46. 9 0.02 ¼ out of Sy.No.50 10 04 ¼ out of 0.08 ½ of Sy.No.52 11 0.1 ¾ out of 003 ½ of Sy.No.58/7 12 003 ½ out of 0-07 ½ of Sy.No.58 13 007 ¼ out of 0141 of Sy.No.59 14 009 ½ out of 0-19 of Sy.No.58. 15 006 out of 012 of Sy.no.59 16 005 ¼ out of 0-10 ½ of Sy.No.60/1 17 0.27 out of 1.14 of Sy.No.63 18 0.04 ½ out of 0.09 of Sy.No.61/4. 19 0.11 out of 0.12 of Sy.No.61/6 20 0.02 ½ out of 0.05 of Sy.No.67/2 21 0.02 out of 0.04 of Sy.No.67/3. 22 0.17 ½ out of 0.35 of Sy.No.68/2. 23 0.23 out of 1.06 of Sy.no.65/3 24 0.03 out of 0.06 of Sy.no.73/3. 19 0.11 out of 0.12 of Sy.No.61/6 20 0.02 ½ out of 0.05 of Sy.No.67/2 21 0.02 out of 0.04 of Sy.No.67/3. 22 0.17 ½ out of 0.35 of Sy.No.68/2. 23 0.23 out of 1.06 of Sy.no.65/3 24 0.03 out of 0.06 of Sy.no.73/3. 25 0.03 ½ out of 0.07 of Sy.No.73/4 26 105 out of 2.10 of Sy.No.79/1 27 0.30 ½ out of 1.21 of Sy.No.98/3 28 0.19 ½ out of 0.39 of Sy.No.99/6 29 1.06 ½ out of 2.13 of Sy.No.109 30 0.19 ½ out of 0.39 of Sy.No.112/2 31 0.15 Out of 0.30 of Sy.No.112/3 32 1.02 out of 2.04 of Sy.No.116/2 33 0.16 out of 0.32 of Sy.No.131/4 34 0.29½ out of 1.19 of Sy.No.141/2 35 0.30 ½ out of 1.21 of Sy.No.147/1 36 0.16 out of 0.32 of Sy.No.148/4 37 0.04 ½ out of 0.09 of Sy.No.148/5 38 0.01 ½ out of 0.03 of Sy.No.148/6 39 0.35 out of 1.30 of Sy.No.152 40 2.03 out of 4.06 of Sy.No.162 41 2 ½ out of 2.05 of Sy.No.132/1 42 1.08 ½ out of 2.17 of Sy.No.159 43 4.20 out of 9.00 of Sy.No.175 44 Sy.No.121/1 extent is not recorded. 45 2.16 in Sy.No.165 in favour of Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Smt. Ramarathnamma daughter of Dodda Veerappa who was the uncle of V.Appaiah deeming that the above parties have half share in the properties and committed dereliction of duty by issuing defective order No.RRT DS/CR/03/02-03, dated 26.11.2002. As this behavior of officer is in violation of Rule 3 (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, this charge is levelled against the Officer. Charge No.2: When Sri E.Ramakrishnappa, Section Officer, K.G.S. Bangalore was working as Tahsildar, of Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, though the land of Sy.No.58 of Yacchanapalli Village, Ronoor Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk was classified as “Neelaturu Tank bed water logged” according to RTC records and though there is prohibition of Government, in granting such lands to private persons issued an order vide No.LND RUO®26/02-03, dated 08.03.2004 and held responsible for allotting illegally (1) 3-00 Acre to Smt. Mumtaz Begum wife of Mahamad peer and (2) 2-08 Acres to Y.B.Anjappa Son of Byrappa under Unauthorised Cultivation Regularisation Scheme and committed dereliction of duty. As this behavior of officer is violation of rule 3 (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, this charge is levelled against the officer. As this behavior of officer is violation of rule 3 (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, this charge is levelled against the officer. Charge No.3: When Sri E. Ramakrishnappa, Section Officer, K.G.S. Bangalore was working as Tahsildar of Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, there was a srirama temple and Fort in gramatana area of Sunnakalli Village Nelavanki Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk. Though the public submitted objection to reserve this area for the use of public, vide order No.LND.RUO(N)50/2002-03 dated 29.02.2004, you are held responsible for grantify (1) 1-28 Guntas to Sri Pyarejan son of Abdul Kareem Sab (2) 0-15 for Sri Syed Hakeem son of Khadar sab 3-00 Acres land for (3) Sri Iqbal pasha son of Syed Hyder under unauthorized cultivation of regularization scheme and committed direlition of duty and the officer violated the rule 3(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and hence the charge is levelled against the officer. Charge No.4: When Sri E.Ramakrishnapa, Section Officer, K.G.S. Bangalore was serving as Tahsildar of Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the land of Sy.No.169 and 170 of Champalli Village, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District was basically Government land, though there was no provision under rules to do the Khatha as per occupancy vide order No.RRT.CR/1247/03-04, dated 10.02.2004, ordered illegally to do the Khatha of Government land of (1) 3-00 Acres in Sy.No.169 in the name of Venkatashami son of Subbareddy and (2) 3-00 acres for Narayanaswamy son of Subbareddy and 6.00 Acres of land in Sy.No.170 in the name of Sri Jayarameddy son of Venkatashami and committed dereliction of duty. As this behavior of the officer is violation of rule 3(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, this charge is levelled against him. Charge No.5: When Sri E.Ramakrishnapa, Section Officer, K.G.S. Bangalore was serving as Tahsildar of Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the land of 1 Acre 33 Guntas in Sy.No.154 of Bangawadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, was Government land according to land records, out of which, though there was no provision under Rules, issued an illegal order vide order No.RRT/CR/118/2000-01 dated 13.03.2003, to do the Khatha of 0.16 Guntas of land into the name of Sri Hiranya Gowda son of Koramanna a private person as per occupancy and committed dereliction of duty. This behavior of officer is violation of rule 3(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1996, this charge is levelled against him. This behavior of officer is violation of rule 3(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1996, this charge is levelled against him. Charge No.6: When Sri E.Ramakrishnapa, Section Officer, K.G.S. Bangalore was serving as Tahsildar of Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, the land of Sy.No.84 and 87 situated at Srinivasapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, were belonged to Forest Department, out of which, you illegally have granted the land measuring 134-18 Acres to total 30 persons as per the following Official Memorandum under unauthorized cultivation regulations scheme and committed dereliction of duty. S. No. OM No. & Date of Tahsildar, Srinivaspur taluk Sy. No. No. of grantees and total extent granted 1 LND.R UO (K) 135/03-14, dated 08.03.2004 84 2 9-36 2 LND.R UO (K) 40/01-02, dated 08.03.2004 84 3 14-20 3 LND.R UO (K) 138/03-02, dated 08.03.2004 84 3 14-15 4 LND.R UO (K) 9/02-03, dated 08.03.2004 87 4 14-00 5 LND.R UO (K) 139/03-04, dated 08.03.2004 84 11 49-25 6 LND.R UO (K) 145/03-04, dated 08.03.2004 84 4 17-10 7 LND.R UO (K) 144/03-04, dated 08.03.2004 84 3 14-19 Total 30 134-18” 10. A careful perusal of the above charges indicates that the petitioner has been recommending grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands belonging to the Government. Particularly, charge No.6 is in respect of 134 acres 18 guntas of forest land. 11. The Regional Commissioner, in the enquiry report, has recorded a finding that the grant orders produced during the enquiry contained a note that the grants were ‘subject to approval by the Forest Department’. The Regional Commissioner has also recorded a finding that vide order dated 17.2.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the grants of lands involved in seven cases have been cancelled. 12. Thus, the question that falls for our consideration is, whether the petitioner was negligent and reckless in discharging his duties? 13. The Tahsildar is the Revenue Head of the Taluk. He is the custodian of revenue records. Whether a land is owned by a private individual or belongs to the Government, is a matter of record and readily available in the office of the Tahsildar. The ‘Pahani’ and the ‘RTC’ will disclose the holding, the nature of the land, the area of the land and other details. He is the custodian of revenue records. Whether a land is owned by a private individual or belongs to the Government, is a matter of record and readily available in the office of the Tahsildar. The ‘Pahani’ and the ‘RTC’ will disclose the holding, the nature of the land, the area of the land and other details. Particularly, in case of lands belonging to the Government, the revenue records would clearly indicate the nature of the land such as a forest land, tank, gomal land etc. 14. The finding recorded by the Regional Commissioner that allotments of large area of land measuring 134 acres 18 guntas was made subject to obtaining ‘no objection’ from the Forest Department is a sufficient circumstance to show that the petitioner was recommending grant of lands either recklessly, negligently or for extraneous considerations. We say so because, as noted hereinabove, indisputably, Tahsildar is the head of Revenue Department in a Taluk and custodian of revenue records. It was urged by the learned Government Advocate that the note contained in allotment letters that such grants’ allotments were subject to ‘no objection’ by the Forest Department was only to cover himself against any disciplinary action. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are persuaded to accept this logic. 15. So far as the question with regard to disciplinary action against a civil servant in cases where, the official may have passed orders in his official capacity, the authority cited by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Duli Chand, reported in (2006)5 SCC 680 is apt. After considering earlier rulings, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “8. In 1999 another Bench of two Judges in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar considered and referred to these earlier decisions. However, the Court appears to have reverted back to the earlier view of the matter where disciplinary action could be taken against an officer discharging judicial functions only where there was an element of culpability involved. Since in that particular case there was no evidence whatsoever that the employee had shown any favour to the assessee to whom refund had been made, it was held that the proceedings against him would not lie. In fact the Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings at the stage of the issuance of chargesheet to the charged officer. 9. Since in that particular case there was no evidence whatsoever that the employee had shown any favour to the assessee to whom refund had been made, it was held that the proceedings against him would not lie. In fact the Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings at the stage of the issuance of chargesheet to the charged officer. 9. In our opinion, Nagarkar case was contrary to the view expressed in K.K.Dhawan case. The decision in K.K.Dhawan being that of a larger Bench would prevail. The decision in Nagarkar case therefore does not correctly represent the law. Inasmuch as the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court were passed on the law enunciated in Nagarkar case this appeal must be allowed. The impugned decisions are accordingly set aside and the order of punishment upheld. There will be no order as to costs.” (Emphasis Supplied) 16. Therefore, in our considered view, petitioner’s case fails both on facts as well as on position of law. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 17. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.1/2017 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of accordingly. We make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.