This petition challenged a departmental penalty of withholding two grade increments. The Court held the inquiry proceedings vitiated because the petitioner was denied supply of documents and inspection, violating fundamental rights and natural justice. Petition allowed.
Writ petition allowed; imposition of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments quashed.
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.
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ORDER
Lal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4029/2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Date of Order: 24.02.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR.
Mr. Vikas Balia with Mr. Hemant Balani, for the petitioner. Ms. Pratishtha Dave, Addl. Government Counsel.
BY THE COURT:
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ for quashing and setting aside impugned orders dated 27.3.1993 and 12.6.2001 imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments and the order whereby the revision petition filed against the appeal was dismissed.
Few brief facts may be noted. That the petitioner was working on the post of Patwari, Santpur, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi. While working on the said post, a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served upon the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had illegally recorded a mutation in favour of Shri Bhagwan Singh s/o Moti as owner of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 43 measuring 19 biswas situated at Patwar Circle, Santpur, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi, whereas the land was recorded in the name
2
of Shri Ganesh s/o Mana. On the death of said Shri Ganesh, mutation No 256 was entered in the name of the said Bhagwan s/o Moti, whereas the land ought to have been declared as nazul land, since the original land holder, namely, Shri Ganesh died without leaving any legal heirs. A reply to the said notice was filed by the petitioner taking the plea that the mutation was opened pursuant to the order of the Tehsildar and that the Gram Panchayat itself had approved the mutation entry. In the said reply dated 30.12.1988, the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to peruse the register containing comments of Tehsildar pertaining to the mutation to be sanctioned and the approval granted by the Gram Panchayat. Despite the reply having been served upon the respondent, the memo of charge-sheet along with details of charge was served upon the petitioner on 1.4.1989. The petitioner vide a letter dated 21.4.1989 requested the District Collector, Jalore for inspection of the record of District Revenue Officer, Sirohi in order to be able to reply to the charge-sheet. Without supplying documents an inquiry was initiated. Inquiry Report was submitted wherein it was held that the petitioner was guilty of offence of entering the mutation in the name of Bhagwan s/o Moti without following the due procedure. Based on the inquiry, an order of penalty of witholding of
two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner on 27.3.1993. Aggrieved against the imposition of penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and dismissal of the appeal by the Divisional Commissioner of the revision petition, the present writ petition has been preferred.
Notice of the said petition was served upon the respondent who filed a detailed reply stating that the petitioner has been found guilty by three authorities, and is thus not entitled to file the present writ petition. It is also pleaded that the petitioner was afforded full opportunities of hearing by the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner choose to avoid the proceedings and remained ex parte. It is further submitted that the petitioner was extended fullest cooperation by the inquiry Officer and the petitioner even cross-examined the departmental witnesses.
During the course of proceedings in the High Court, counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record the mutation No 256 which was made on the basis of an order passed by the Tehsildar, Abu Road on 30.8.1982 . Pursuant thereto, an application was filed before the office of the Gram Panchayat, Santpur as well as in the Tehsil Office, Abu Road seeking copy of the aforesaid
. 4
order. In response to the said application, the Gram Panchayat vide its communication dated 11.9.2008 informed that there is no record available on record in regard to the disputed mutation entry 256. The petitioner received a letter from Tehsil Office, Abu Road dated 11.9.2008 stating that the said record would be made available once it is received from the office of the concerned Patwari. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that to date, said record has not been made available to him, raising a presumption that the mutation made were correct as also in view of the fact that neither the State Government nor the Gram Panchayat has made any effort to change the entries and revert this land into nazul land.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
The petitioner was served a charge-sheet and in response thereto a reply was filed. In order to be able to prepare his defence, the petitioner had requested for supply of the documents vide his letter dated 21.4.1989. It has been the categoric stand of the petitioner that the documents relied upon by the inquiry officer in the report were never supplied to him and as such he had been put to great disadvantage. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court reported as Karan
5
Singh through His LRs. vs. The Collector and anr., RLW 2006(4) Raj. 3132, to contend that when a demand is made for record, the same should be supplied to him. Non-supply of these documents caused serious prejudice to him and also occasioned in miscarriage of justice. Further reliance has also been placed on State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha,
(2010) 2 SCC 772, to urge that the inquiry report was vitiated for failure to supply necessary documents. It is a well settled proposition of law that the inquiry will stand vitiated in case the petitioner is denied inspection and supply of documents sought. A perusal of the charge sheet and the memo of charges do not reflect that any documents were supplied to the petitioner which is in gross violation of the rules. The contention of counsel for the respondents that full opportunity of hearing and cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner, is not sustainable since at the very threshold, he was not supplied the documents as requested.
Looking at it from another angle, the entire basis of the case against the petitioner is that a mutation has been effected by him in the name of Bhagwan s/o Moti after the death of the original owner, whereas the inquiry itself has not established that the original owner Shri Ganesh had died without any legal heirs .
. 6
Moreover, looking into the fact that the State itself has not taken any effort to cancel the mutation under rule 137 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue(Land Records) Rules, 1957 in canceling the said mutation, a presumption can be drawn that the petitioner acted on the instructions issued by the Tehsildar which had the approval of the Gram Panchayat.
Even now during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner made an attempt to get the record of the Tehsildar and the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat pertaining to mutation to be effected in the name of Bhagwan s/o Moti, but the requisite documents have not been supplied supplied to the petitioner.
Since the petitioner was not supplied with documents and had been deprived an opportunity to inspect the record of the case, the entire proceedings before the inquiry Officer are vitiated. Resultantly, the imposition of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect is unsustainable.
In view of the above, the above noted petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
(JAISHREE THAKUR),J.
mlt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner were vitiated due to non-supply of documents and denial of inspection.
Whether the penalty of withholding increments imposed on the petitioner is sustainable when the inquiry report is vitiated.
Whether a presumption of innocence arises as the authorities failed to cancel the mutation under the Land Revenue Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Karan Singh through His LRs. vs. The Collector and anr.Relied on¶20
Karan Singh through His LRs. vs. The Collector and anr., RLW 2006(4) Raj. 3132
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar SinhaRelied on¶22
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Lal Singh
The State of Rajasthan
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
