Survey Supervisor dismissed for manipulating land records enhancing extent from 21 to 37 guntas challenged his dismissal, arguing non-supply of enquiry report and vagueness of charge. Court held no demonstrable prejudice was shown, aakaarband overrides figures as to extent, and punishment matched gravity; writ petition dismissed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:7095-DB WP No. 11281 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 11281 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N G NAGARAJAIAH, S/O LATE SRI NARASHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT GAVINAGAMANGALA VILLAGE MADABALU HOBLI, AJJANAHALLI (PO) MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P MAHESHA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.KHAMROZ KHAN.,AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KSAT IN APPLICATION No4090/2020 DATED 30.11.2021 VIDE AS ANNEXURE-R AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND SURVEY) IN GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.KAN E 168 BHU HASE (3) 2018 BANGALORE DATED 05.07.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER LAND SURVEY SYSTEM AND LAND RECORDS BANGALORE IN NO.SIBBANDHI.SHISTU.26/03-04 DATED 07.08.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-M2 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO REINSTATE PETITIONER FOR THE POST AS ON HIS DISMISSAL ORDER AND GRANTING ALL CONSEQUENTIAL AND MONITORING BENEFITS TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY ENTITLE UNDER LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner who was working as Survey Supervisor was proceeded against in a Disciplinary Enquiry on the charge of manipulating the records, and in the alternative if not bringing such manipulation to the notice of higher ups. As the charge was grave, inasmuch as Government was loosing about 16 guntas of valuable land, records having been manipulated enhancing the extent from 21 guntas to 37, the penalty of dismissal has been ordered. The challenge to the same before the Tribunal having failed, now he is grieving before the writ court.
1074 ; the principles of natural justice being part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, their violation should void in the orders; secondly, the petitioner had issued the extract on 24.02.2003 specifically mentioning 21 guntas only and not 37 guntas; this aspect has not been considered; a copy of the same avails at Annexure-A9; thirdly, the charge being as vague as can be, a civil servant cannot be put to violence by holding enquiry of the kind that eventually resulted into his dismissal from service. Even otherwise, the punishment is too much on the higher side and shocks the conscience of the Court.
He also adds that the Tribunal has not duly considered the
matter in its right perspective on merits and thus there is error apparent on its face. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the petition.
of Annexure-A-9, though in figure mentions 21 guntas, mischievously the aakaarband shows a larger extent of 37 guntas; along with 2nd show cause notice the Enquiry Report was also sent and to that effect, a finding is recorded by the Tribunal; even otherwise the law having marched from April to May and June of its life post KARUNAKARAN supra the violation of principles of natural justice sans demonstrable prejudice is no ground for invalidation of orders of the kind. He also submits that the Tribunal having considered all aspects of the matter, has rightly denied relief to the petitioner and that cannot be
examined by this court in a deeper way in the supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227, vide SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (2003) 3 SCC 524 , the punishment accords with the gravity of guild of the Petitioner. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
a) The first contention vehemently advanced by Petitioner’s counsel that the charge is as vague as can be, does not impress us. The charge is specific namely manipulation of public records; the alternate charge is, not notifying such manipulation to the higher ups; service law books are replete with such cases. Secondly, the petitioner is not some peasant working in a farm land or a labour, he has put in decades of service in the ADLR’s office; he has fully understood the charge in the right perspective and only thereafter has submitted his reply. It is not that he
was not able to understand the charge. When a litigant
understands, his lawyer cannot render it as ununderstandable by ingenious argument.
b) The disciplinary proceedings were held after due
notice to the petitioner inasmuch as huge public property admeasuring 16 guntas was at stake in Bengaluru city, where real estate prices have gone sky high. Learned AGA is right in inviting attention of the court that petitioner has specifically admitted having drawn the aakaarband admeasuring 37 guntas although he had clandestinely mentioned in figures only 21 guntas; it has been a settled position of law, that between figures and the naksha/aakaarband; later over-rides the former when the issue of extent of the law crops up for consideration. Petitioner appears to be a person lying on the verge of truth and such persons are dangerous to public administration. Though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client had specifically mentioned correct extent of land ie., 21 guntas in the
extract dated 24.02.2003, the same would not come to his aid, the aakaaarband/naksha form being 37 Guntas which even a blind can see. Therefore this contention does not come to his aid.
c) Learned AGA is right in submitting that once an employee incharge of public records has prepared copies thereof and has handed the same to the seekers, the presumption is that he did it on the basis of original records available in the office; certified copies of the documents, can be issued of the originals; copies of the copies cannot be granted in civilized jurisdiction. It is not the case of petitioner before us that he had prepared Annexure-A9 not on the basis of the original records. His specific case is that after preparation & issuance of the extracts, he has not done anything with the original, is bit difficult to agree with. Viewed from any angle, this version of the petitioner appears to be a cock & bull story, to say the least. The argument to the contrary would degenerate the public accountability of the custodians of
public records, and that would be disastrous to the public interest.
d) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that one Mr. Rangaiah, who was working as ADLR had signed the aakaarbund and issued the same on 30.05.2003 in terms of Annexure-A9 itself (Annexure-A9 actually is of two pages, the first comprising of extract of Rangaiah created on 30.05.2003 and the back page comprising of the extract dated 22.02.2003 issued by the petitioner). On that basis he submits that the factum of so called manipulation was already within the knowledge of higher ups and therefore the charge that petitioner failed to notify the same to his higher ups, has to fall down to the ground. This in our view does not merit countenance. Some officials being in the knowledge of some manipulation is not the factor here. What is expected of custodians of the records is that whenever any manipulation is noticed, all corrective measures have to be taken for setting the same right at the first sight and in
that direction he has to immediately report the matter to
the higher ups. That is the protocol and that is the legal requirement as well. The question is not whether somebody knew of manipulation but whether the custodian of the records officially notified the manipulation to the higher ups. These two questions are poles apart and therefore the contention of the kind cannot be sustained.
e) The vehement contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he was served with the 2nd show cause notice through the Tahsildar sans enquiry report, is bit difficult to accept and reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the petitioner has admitted in his letter dated 04.01.2009 at Annexure-A12 that he had received the 2nd
show cause notice on 10.12.2008; if it was not accompanied by the Enquiry Report (when the notice itself said it was accompanied), no reasonable person would have waited till 04.01.2009. The time gap is too long and that repels contention of the kind. As already said above,
petitioner is a seasoned employee which factor is vouched by the text of his letter itself, which articulatedly speaks first principles of administrative law. Secondly, there is no reason to doubt the version of Commissioner; the 2nd show cause notice bears his signature, he being the author thereof.
f) Even otherwise, assuming that the petitioner is truthful in his above submission, still he cannot avail the benefits of law declared in MOHAMMED RAMZAN KHAN and KARUNAKAR cases supra in the absence of demonstrable prejudice occasioned by the non-supply of copies of Enquiry Report & other documents, our system has moved from form to substance and the violation of principles of natural justice per se is not sufficient to grant relief to the citizen in the absence of demonstrable prejudice. Added, the Enquiry Report was a part of his Application before the KAT; when and how he got the same remain a mystery wrapped in enigma. He himself has produced the same. Despite vociferous submissions of counsel, the petitioner
could not demonstrate what prejudice has been
occasioned to him.
g) Petitioner does not dispute in the petition that he had admitted that he was the author & signatory of aakaarband which wrongly depicted 37 guntas in lieu of 21 guntas. He has also virtually apologized, which aspect is forthcoming from the penalty order dated 05.07.2019. The same was not been disputed either before the Tribunal too, as rightly contended by learned AGA. That being the position, petitioner cannot pretend to be innocent. In mattes like this, the length of service which he claiming to have put in as an official, discredits the contention of bonafide mistake. A person who is shown to have done a clandestine act of manipulating the public records cannot plead bonafide error in the discharge of duties.
h) The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and therefore the same needs to be scaled down, regard being had to the long service he has put in
without blemish barring the one at hand now, cannot be
accepted. The charges are grave; the stand of the petitioner-employee was unconscionable; the original public record is lost and that would cause a great loss to the State. In the absence of original records it becomes difficult for the State to protect its property. In matters like this, the punishment of dismissal accords with the gravity of guilt. Such cases should stand as shining example to the potential delinquents.
i) Learned AGA is right in saying that this court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the orders of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. What punishment needs to be awarded to a delinquent employee is a matter essentially in the domain of the jurisdictional authorities and Writ Courts cannot run a race of opinions with them. The Tribunal having accumulated wisdom in matters like this, has arrived at a just decision after adverting to all aspects of the matter. We need not reiterate that the
focal point of judicial review is the decision making process
and not the decision itself. After going through the entire record, we are satisfied that the proceedings have been held perfectly in accord with the rules and principles of natural justice. The punishment awarded is commensurate with the gravity of guilt. There are no mitigating factors demonstrable from records.
In view of the above, this writ petition being thoroughly devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly is dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-supply of the enquiry report with the second show cause notice violated natural justice and vitiated dismissal.
Whether the charge of manipulating survey records was vague and whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UNION OF INDIA vs. MOHAMMED RAMZAN KHANReferred¶27
AIR 1991 SC 471 · Who else cites this
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ECIL vs. B.KARUNAKARDistinguished¶56
AIR 1994 SC 1074 · Who else cites this
SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.Relied on¶35
(2003) 3 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. N G NAGARAJAIAH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND SURVEY)
THE COMMISSIONER, SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
KRISHNA S DIXIT
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
