IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1031 of 2007 Harish Kumar Tiwari, SON OF LATE GOPAL SHARAN TIWARI, RESIDENT OF BIXI MOHALLA NEAR PADRI KI HAWELI, P.S. KHAJEKALAN, PATNACITY, DISTRICT- PATNA. :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN PATNA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE), PATNA COLLECTORATE, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA. 6. SRI SANJAY PRITY ADARSHI CUM INQUIRY OFFICER, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE THEN DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE), PATNA COLLECTORATE, PATNA. 7. SHRI ANIL KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AT PRESENT WORKING ON THE POST OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR (KANOONGO) IN PATNA COLLECTORATE, PATNA. 8. SRI MADAN MOHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE DHANPAL LAL, THE THEN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Asstt. Counsel to A.A.G.-14. ===== 2. 22.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State who prayed for time to file counter affidavit but such prayer is being refused as the petition remained pending in this Court for over four years yet the State-respondents did not file any counter affidavit in the matter, although the copy of the brief was served on the State counsel on the date of filing of the petition i.e. 24.1.2007. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as clerk in the Establishment Section of the 2 Patna Collectorate. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 28.03.2003, Annexure-22, whereunder he has been punished with punishment of censure, no salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the suspension period and that he shall not be allowed any increment after the year 1999 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31st March, 2003 holding him guilty of not informing the authorities the relevant fact that land revenue receipt cannot be granted in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay, whose lease for the Khas Mahal Land has already been cancelled and possession resumed by the State. He is also found guilty of the charge that being the custodian of the file concerning Dr. Madan Sahay allowed the same to be misplaced. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2006, Annexure-24, whereunder learned Commissioner, Patna Division has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 28.03.2003, Annexure-22 holding that petitioner being the custodian of the relevant file is the sole person responsible for its misplacement. 3 3. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the aforesaid punishment/Appellate orders with reference to his information note dated 27.01.1999, Annexure-3 given by him to the Additional Collector that the file was taken away by his superior officer namely, the Kanoongo. Perusal of the aforesaid note indicates that the same has been recorded much after the mutation having been made in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay, at the stage when the illegality in mutating the lands in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay was discovered and responsibility was to be fixed then at that stage the note dated 27.01.1999 was written by the petitioner. 4. Lands were erroneously mutated in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay much earlier to 27.1.1999 as he proceeded to deposit the rent for the period 1994-95-1998-99 under challan dated 13.4.1998. Lands were mutated in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay prior to 13.4.1998 at that stage petitioner being the custodian of the file in which order cancelling the lease of Dr. Sahay was made should have informed the authorities that mutation of lands in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay is not permissible. Petitioner having not 4 taken any step prior to 13.4.1998 to inform the authorities that neither mutation is required to be made in favour of Dr. Madan Sahay nor receipt be granted in his favour, I am of the view that he has been rightly held guilty and punished with minor punishment for not informing the authorities that lease of Dr. Madan Sahay having already been cancelled, he is not required to be issued any land receipt. For the reasons aforementioned, I am not inclined to interfere with the minor punishment imposed on the petitioner. 5. In view of my discussion above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)