1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8773 of 2008. Date of Decision: 24th December, 2010. Rajinder Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and another …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). This petition has been filed, praying for the following reliefs: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, the applicant prays for the following reliefs: (i) That the impugned order contained in Annexure A-6 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (iii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to exonerate the applicant from the charges levelled against him, found and so established by the Inquiry Officer, vide inquiry report contained in Annexure A-5. (iii) Costs of the O.A. may be awarded in favour of the applicant. (iv) Records of the entire case may kindly be ordered to be summoned. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (v) Any other and further order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, be also passed. 2. Annexure A-5 is the Inquiry Report dated 10th April, 2010 and Annexure A-6 is the order of penalty imposed by the employer on the basis of the Inquiry Report in relation to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 3. Certain facts are not disputed. Petitioner was working as a Patwari. During the course of discharge his duties, he made certain entries in the revenue record. Complaint was received, on the basis of which show cause notice dated 15th January, 2000 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the petitioner, which reads as under:- “Whereas Shri Rajinder Kumar Patwari at present Patwar Circle Hamirpur while functioning as Patwari Patwar Circle Shiv Nagar during the year 1992-93 has deleted the entries relating to the possession of Sh. Kisher Chand etc. r/o Up Mohal Shiv Nagar, Mauja Bajuri, Tehsil Hamirpur in respect of Khasra Nos. 310 and 312 in the occupancy column of Jamabandi for the year 1993094 with a malafide intention of giving benefit to the owners recorded in the ownership column of the said Jamabandi. Whereas Sh. Rajinder Kumar Patwari at present Patwari P.C. Hamirpur while functioning as Patwari P.C. Shiv Nagar during the year 1993-94 has deleted the entries of Khata Number 195 min Khatauni Number 572 of Up Mohal Shiv Nagar, one of the owner of which is his own father namely Sh. Narain Dass. This intentional act on the part of said Sh. Rajinder Kumar Patwari shows clearly that he has misused his official position which is unbecoming of Government of Himachal Pradesh. servant. Thus he has violated the provisions of Rule 3 1 (i) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Therefore, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Patwari Patwar Circle Hamirpur is hereby called upon to show cause within 10 days from the receipt of this notice as to why a 3 disciplinary action as warranted under rules shall not be initiated against him. Sd/ District Collector, Hamirpur. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner received the same and also furnished reply dated 27.1.2001 (Annexure A-2). Importantly, factum of the entries made by the petitioner are not disputed. However, error is attributed to clerical mistake. The contents of the reply are reproduced herein below:- “With profound veneration and humble submission I am to draw a reference of Show Cause Notice served upon me vide your office endst. No. 219/51 Acctt. dated 15th January, 2000 and to say that no entries of possession pertaining to land comprised in Khata No. 195 Min, Khatauni No. 572 as per Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 were deleted. The fact is that while preparing subsequent Jambandi for the year 1992-93 from Jamabandi 1987-88, the alleged entries stand omitted per chance from in corporation in the Jamabandi 1992- 93. As ill luck would have been on it, while checking the Jamabandi the entries so omitted were also remained over sighted during the checking of Jamabandi buy the Field Kanungo rather this omission might have been rectified earlier as soon as the matter brought to notice ‘a Fard Badar’ as contemplated in Para 8-52 of H.P. Land Record Mannual, 1992, has been prepared and order of Collector Sub Division Hamirpur were received for in corporation of omitted entries. This omission was of clerical nature which has been corrected. It is, therefore, requested that no entry was deleted but it was omitted perchance from in corporating in the next Jamabandi which is a clerical omission and now the same has been rectified through re-vitalizing the 4 omitted entries. The show cause notice served upon me may kindly be dropped in the interest of Justice.” 5. Not finding favour with the reply, Disciplinary Authority decided to continue with disciplinary proceedings and consequently memorandum containing Article of Charges (Annexure A-3) were served upon the petitioner. Receipt thereof is not in dispute. 6. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner to have misconducted himself. The charge stood proved. The operative portion of the report reads as under: “………It is well established that the land of Khasra No. 310 and 312 is owned by Shri Niranjan Dass and Ram Chand i.e. father and uncle of the said patwari and stands mortgaged in the hands of Bihari Lal. But this land is falling under the possession of Kishore Chand others Nephews of Niranjan Dass and Ram Chand. The delinquent official having personal interest in the land of Khasra No. 310 and 312 has omitted the entries of Kishore Chand and others so that the benefit of land could reach to his father and uncle without any obstruction and impediment which is desernible from the prevailing entries of possession of column in the previous record. No doubt the old entries of possession column existing as per jamabandi for the year 1988-89 have been revitalized by obtaining order on Fard Baddar, treating the present omission as a clerical mistake, thereby giving relief to the aggrieved persons, but the patwari was not supposed to make any change without any mutation or order of any competent authority. Obviously, this is a false play on the part of the delinquent official having personal interest to show the land of his father and uncle in their exclusive ownership and possession, arbitrarily deleting the entries of possession column which were continuing in the name of 5 his cousins. In view of my above finding the charges levelled against said Shri Rajinder Kumar Patwari establishes beyond any doubt”. 7. Considering the report, Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of reduction of pay by 5 stages. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “…. I have gone through the enquiry report and the record placed on the file. I am satisfied that the charges is proved against the delinquent official Rajinder Kumar parwari, regarding change of entries. In view of the seriousness of the offence, I hereby impose penalty (vi) listed in Rule II of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The specific application of the penalty being that the pay of Shri Rajinder Kumar patwari be reduced by 5 stages from Rs. 6600/- to Rs. 5640/- in the time scale of pay of 4440- 7000 for a period of 5 years with immediate effect. It is further ordered that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay.” 8. It is urged that in terms of the judgment dated 14.7.2006 passed by Special Judge, Hamirpur in Corruption Case No. 5 of 2004 titled State Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another petitioner stands acquitted hence he should have been absolved in the Disciplinary Proceedings. 9. In the instant case, acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case shall have no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Disciplinary proceedings are not based on the evidence led in the criminal proceedings, nor are the findings of the inquiry officer based thereupon. The power of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings is independent to the action under the Penal Laws of the Land. 6 10. In the instant case enquiry was conducted by Additional District Magistrate himself. After considering the entire material placed before him, he came to the conclusion that charges against the employee stood proved. Charges are serious. The delinquent official interpolated revenue record to give undue benefit to his near relations. In fact his action is nothing but gross abuse and misuse of powers, vested in him. He also executed the jurisdiction vested in him. In my considered view, Inquiring Authority has let him off leniently. The charges were grave and serious. During the course of hearing, it could not be pointed out that principles of natural justice, prejudicing the delinquent official, were ever violated during the entire course of disciplinary proceedings. In fact principles of natural justice at all stages of inquiry stand fully complied with. 11. From the record, no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness in the respondents’ action could be pointed out. Scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of an action taken in the disciplinary proceedings is very limited. My attention has been invited to revenue record i.e. Jamabandi (Annexure A-7) to show that even the higher authority had itself recorded that entries were made on account of clerical mistake. However, from Annexure A-7 itself, it is apparent that the superior officer i.e. Tehsildar has categorically recorded that relevant entries were recorded by the delinquent official without any orders of the Competent Authority. Thus, I find no merit in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed. 12. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stand disposed of. (Sanjay Karol) Judge December 24, 2010 (KRS)