The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his termination as a Patwari. Upholding the S.D.O.'s authority to dismiss and the validity of the enquiry conducted ex-parte, the court held the impugned orders had no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6685 of 2014
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawani, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Commissioner, Bilaspur, Commissioner Officer, 27 Kholi Chowk, P.S. Civil Line Bilapsur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Collector Bilaspur, Collectorate Officer, P.S Civil Line District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Office of SDO, P.S. Gourela Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur C.G
5. The Tahsildar Office Of Tahsil Pendra Road, P.S. Gourella, Distirct Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
08.02.2024
1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P/19) and the appellate order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P/28) whereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated, and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Patwari on 03.07.1995 by the Collector Land Record, Bilaspur (Annexure P/1). While the petitioner was posted as Patwari in Village Pandariya at Patwari Halka No.9, certain complaints were made by the villagers that the petitioner in connivance with other was selling the government land. On the basis of the complaint dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure R/1) a preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Pendra to respondent No.4/S.D.O (Revenue), Pendra Road (Annexure R/2). Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure P/11). Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.09.2012 (Annexure P/12). On 23.10.2012, the petitioner demanded documents, copy of statement and copy of suspension order (Annexure P/13) and thereafter, certain documents were supplied vide order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure P/14). Thereafter, the petitioner made a demand for another document (Annexure P/15) and also made a request not to lodge the FIR against him (Annexure P/16). Looking to the act of the petitioner, the FIR was registered. In the enquiry conducted by Tehsildar Pendra, it was found that both the charges were proved, as the petitioner without any authority made forged entry of the government land of Village Pandariya and he had also supplied, the information regarding 22 points, in an illegal manner. Thereafter, the impugned termination order was passed, which was affirmed in
3
the Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned termination order (Annexure P/19) was passed by the S.D.O (Revenue), Pendra Road on 17.05.2013 and the petitioner is a Patwari whose appointing/disciplinary authority is the Collector as prescribed in Section 104 (2) of the M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, the said termination order passed by the lower authority is per se illegal. He would submit that during the enquiry, the necessary documents have not been supplied to him; neither opportunity of hearing was given nor Presenting Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer himself performed the role of the prosecutor, which is also illegal and against the law. He would further submit that under Rule 14 (5) (c) under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, where the disciplinary authority appoints an inquiring authority for holding any inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the ‘Presenting Officer’ to present on its behalf the case in support of the article of charge. He places reliance on the judgment in the matter of Virendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others (order dated 21.02.2014 passed in WPS No.5418/2006).
4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that in the Petition, a wrong submission has been made that in the the instant case, no Presenting Officer has been appointed and he would submit that vide order dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure R/6) Revenue Inspector,
4
Pendra was appointed as Presenting Officer under Rule 14 (5) (c) of the Rules, 1966 and Tehsildar Pendra has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. He would further submit that during the enquiry, the proper procedure has been followed and in the enquiry, serious allegations were made against the petitioner that while being posted as Patwari, he manipulated the records of the government land in the name of the private persons and also issued information of 22 points, thereafter, the sale deed was also executed and charges were found proved in the enquiry. Hence, there is no illegality in the termination order passed by the S.D.O (Revenue), Pendra Road (Annexure P/19). He would submit that S.D.O is the competent authority to dismiss Patwari and he has been conferred powers of the Collector to appoint a Patwari in view of the Provisions of Section 22 (2) of the M.P Land Revenue Code read with notification dated 01.10.1959. Reliance is palced in the matter of Smt. Kala Bai vs State of M.P. and Others 2011 (1) M.P.L.J 547. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the Schedule framed under Rules 8 and 24 of the Rules, 1966, and at Serial No.6 Class 3, in respect of Patwaris, the appointing authority is the S.D.O and authority competent to impose all the penalties and also vested powers with the S.D.O, the appellate authority is the Collector, therefore, he would submit that there is no merit in the Petition and prays to dismiss the same.
5. Heard the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.
5
6. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, no Presenting Officer has been appointed is not correct on the facts. In the reply, it has been categorically stated that the Presenting Officer has been appointed and the copy of the same has also been annexed with the reply (Annexure R/6) and Revenue Inspector, Pendra was appointed as a Presenting Officer. The issue as to whether the S.D.O has the power to appoint the Patwari and the consequences thereof the power to dismiss directly came before the M.P High Court in the matter of Smt. Kala Bai vs State of M.P. and Others (supra). In the said matter, the Full Bench of the M.P High Court has categorically held at para 26 that the Sub Divisional Officer has been conferred powers of the Collector to appoint a Patwari in view of the Provision of Section 22 (2) of the M.P Land Revenue Code and the notification dated 01.10.1959 published in the M.P. Gazette, dated 9-10-1959 and there is a consequences thereof he also has the power to remove the Patwari from service.
7. The judgment which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Virendra Kumar Shrivastava (supra) in view of the Full Bench judgment of the M.P High Court does not lay down a correct law.
8. In Smt. Kala Bai vs State of M.P. and Others (supra), it has been categorically observed at para 11 that the provision as contained in M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, in particular Rule 8 and the Schedule, were considered, providing provision for initiating disciplinary
6
proceedings and for imposing penalty. The Legislation by the aforesaid Rules specifically provided that the S.D.O shall be the Appointing Authority and Competent Authority to impose all the penalties as provided in Rule 9, and the Collector is the Appellate Authority, but the aforesaid aspect has been escaped from the notice of the earlier Benches.
9. In the matter of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584, it has been categorically observed regarding the scope of judicial review and the following was held at para 7:-
“It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse………………...”
10. In the instant matter, the petitioner has not taken any ground that without any evidence that penalty has been imposed on the petitioner and in the enquiry report, it has been categorically mentioned that on 21.01.2013 (Annexure R/7), the petitioner has not participated in the enquiry proceeding and thus, he was proceeded ex-parte, as the Enquiry Officer Tehsildar Pendra in his enquiry report (Annexure R/7) and the appellate authority Collector in his report (Annexure P/28) categorically opined there
7
are ample evidence available on record to show that the petitioner, while being posted as Patwari, manipulated the land records and issued 22 points by manipulating the records of the government land and thereafter, the said land was sold to the private persons. Though, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in Criminal Case, the petitioner has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road in Criminal Case No.100/2015, but it is well settled that in a departmental proceedings, the allegations are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt. In the disciplinary proceeding, if there is some evidence to prove the charge, the jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review is limited.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priyanka
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the S.D.O (Revenue) possesses the authority under Section 22(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code to terminate a Patwari's service.
Whether the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer renders the disciplinary proceedings illegal under Rule 14(5)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Virendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and othersDoubted¶22
Virendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others (order dated 21.02.2014 passed in WPS No.5418/2006)
Smt. Kala Bai vs State of M.P. and OthersRelied on¶23
Smt. Kala Bai vs State of M.P. and Others 2011 (1) M.P.L.J 547.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand NalwayaRelied on¶33
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Rakesh Verma
State Of Chhattisgarh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
