IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.162 of 2007 Raja Ram Singh, Son of Late Shri Bardheo Singh, resident of village Mahesh Parasi, Police Station Uphara, P.O. Gorkati, District Aurangabad, presently Revenue Karamchari Kutumba Anchal, Police Station Kutumba, District Aurangabad …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Magadh Commissioner, Gaya 3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad 4. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad 5. The Director National Employee Scheme Aurangabad- Cum- Conducting/ Enquiry Officer, Aurangabad ………. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Lal Bahadur Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr. Rajiv Roy, G.P.-5 02/ 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Revenue Karamchari in the Circle Office Navinagar within the District of Aurangabad. He has filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, to quash the order bearing Memo No. 63 dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad, whereunder after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, he has been awarded punishment of censure and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect as also no payment of full salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 24.8.2006, 2 Annexure-9 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Service Appeal No. 14 of 2006 whereunder appeal filed against order bearing Memo No. 63 dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8 has been dismissed. 3. It appears, petitioner was found to have committed irregularity in issue of land revenue receipt to one Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh, son of Late Saryu Singh of village Lembokhap whereafter he was placed under suspension under order No. 73/04-05, bearing Memo No. 190 dated 14.9.2004, Annexure-3 in contemplation of departmental proceeding and was served with memo of charge dated 14.9.2005, Annexure-2, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner is alleged to have issued land revenue receipt to Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh for the year 2003-04 for 2.51 acres of land, which was not authenticated in the Jamabandi Register ignoring the fact that for the previous year said land holder was issued land revenue receipt for an area of 1.08 acres. Having received the memo of charge, petitioner filed his written defence before the Enquiry Officer asserting that he had given the Jamabandi Register to the Circle Inspector, who while returning the same, instructed him to 3 issue land revenue receipt in the name of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh. In compliance of the instructions of the Circle Inspector, petitioner perused the Jamabandi Register and noticed against the name of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh that the area of his land 1.08 acres has been encircled and beneath the circle 2.51 acres has been written on the basis of which he issued land revenue receipt for 2.51 acres, although while issuing the receipt he did not increase the amount of rent as the same was not altered and remained as before. Petitioner further indicated in the show cause reply that he is not aware as to when land area entries made in the Jamabandi Register against the name of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh was encircled and beneath the encircle 2.51 acres was written. Aforesaid insertion may have been made either by his predecessor, Ram Lakhan Prasad or by the Circle Inspector when the Jamabandi Register was handed over to him and without ascertaining as to who has made insertion about the area of land in the Jamabandi Register against the name of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh, enquiry proceeding cannot be taken to its logical end. The Enquiry Officer did not ask for any report from the 4 handwriting expert with regard to the admitted handwriting of the predecessor of the petitioner, Ram Lakhan Prasad and the then Circle Inspector vis-à-vis the insertion made. The Enquiry Officer, however, under report dated 17.11.2005, Annexure-5 found that it is not necessary to ascertain as to who has encircled the original land holding of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh in the Jamabandi Register as also who has inserted 2.51 acres below the circle, but the Enquiry Officer recorded a categorical finding that petitioner proceeded to issue land revenue receipt in favour of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh for the increased land area which was neither authenticated nor any corrigendum authorizing such insertion was issued. Petitioner proceeded to issue land revenue receipt for the larger area only on the oral instruction of the Circle Inspector, which was wholly improper. The Collector having been satisfied with the findings recorded in the enquiry report, under notice bearing Memo No. 458 dated 29.12.2005, Annexure-6 asked second show cause reply from the petitioner as to why he be not awarded major punishment in the light of the findings recorded in the enquiry report. Petitioner in 5 response to the second show cause notice submitted his reply dated 10.2.2006, Annexure-7 reiterating the same contentions which were reiterated in the earlier written defence and submitted that before proceeding to hold him guilty of the charges, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to have verified from the admitted handwriting of the petitioner, his predecessor, Ram Lakhan Prasad and the Circle Inspector to whom Jamabandi Register was handed over by the petitioner as to who had actually encircled 1.08 acres and wrote 2.51 acres beneath the original land holding of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh and petitioner should have been held guilty only in the event it was found that his predecessor and the then Circle Inspector had not made such insertion about the land area against the name of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh. Insertion made in the land area against the name of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh in the Jamabandi Register having not been verified with the admitted handwriting of the predecessor of the petitioner, Ram Lakhan Prasad and the then Circle Inspector, the enquiry report is fit to be rejected. The Collector, Aurangabad considered the aforesaid second show cause 6 reply and passed the impugned order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8 imposing the punishment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the aforesaid punishment order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8, submitted that bare perusal of the said order would indicate that thereunder the case pleaded by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer as also in the second show cause reply, that he can be held guilty of the charge only after it is conclusively held that insertion in the Jamabandi Register against the land holding of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh was not made by his predecessor or the then Circle Inspector, has not at all been considered and on this ground alone the impugned punishment order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8 is fit to be set aside. 5. True it is that learned Collector while passing the impugned punishment order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8, has only referred to the enquiry report, second show cause notice and second show cause reply and has not referred to the written defence of the petitioner that before concluding the enquiry, it was necessary to ascertain as to who has made the insertion in the 7 Jamabandi Register against the land holding of Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh and until it is found that his predecessor and Circle Inspector has not made such insertion, he should not be held guilty of the charges, but Collector has held the petitioner guilty as the petitioner proceeded to issue land revenue receipt on the basis of the oral instruction of the Circle Inspector for an area which was neither authenticated nor any corrigendum was issued authorizing such correction. In my view, therefore, the Collector, Aurangabad has given good reasons to hold petitioner guilty of the charge. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned punishment order dated 14.2.2006, Annexure-8 as also in the appellate order dated 24.8.2006, Annexure-9. The writ petition is dismissed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)