WP(C) 652/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who, at the relevant point in time was posted as Sub-reg istrar, Hojai Sub-Division in Nagaon district, by the present petition, has pray ed for the following directions: (i) To open the office of the Sub-registrar, Hojai; (ii) To return the books and documents taken away by the respondent no.3(Sub- divisional Officer(Civil), Hojai); (iii) To direct the respondent no.2 (District Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissione r), Nagaon, to cause an enquiry against the respondent no.4(an L.D.A. in the off ice of the Sub-registrar, Hojai), as to why and how the certain registered deeds were tampered with; and (iv) Not to take any punitive action against the petitioner suspending him fr om service and providing adequate security while functioning as Sub-registrar, H ojai. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as Sub-regist rar, Hojai, a written complaint was received by him from one Shri Jayanta Dasgup ta alleging tampering/forging of certain documents executed by him and got regis tered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Hojai, prior to his joining in the sai d office, which, though, had been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Distr ict Registrar, nothing has been done so far. According to the petitioner, respon dent no.4 was a part of such fudging. It has also been projected in the writ pet ition that thereafter the respondent no.3, without having any instruction from h igher authority, had come to his office on 17.1.2011 and after manhandling him w ith the help of some other persons, forcibly taken away certain documents and pu t the office under lock and key about which, according to the petitioner, though he again lodged a complaint with the Principal Secretary(Revenue), Registration , on 19.1.2011, nothing has been done by the said authority. It is also the case of the petitioner that by the said communication, though a permission to lodge an FIR was sought for, the same had not been answered, for which the entire inci dent was conveyed to the officer-in-charge of Hojai police station on 21.4.2011, but the latter had not taken any steps in that regard. It has been stated in both the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar that the allegation of tamperi ng/ forging of deeds executed by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta is not correct; on the oth er hand, there are some allegations against the petitioner about his functioning , for which some internal enquiries had also been made. The Deputy Commissioner, in the said affidavits, also denied the other allegations made by the petitione r in the writ petition. The respondent no.3 and 4, in their affidavits filed, also denied the al legations made by the petitioner, contending that there were serious anomalies c ommitted by the petitioner which compelled the SDO(C) to inspect his office for taking required administrative action which, according to the respondent no.3, w as done by him as per the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent no.4, in the affidavit, also denied the allegation of tampering/f orging of documents by him. It has also been contended that the petitioner has n o locus standi to ask for any enquiry into the allegation of forgery or tamperin g of some documents, when the person whose documents were alleged to have been t ampered with had not come forward praying for any enquiry in that regard. I have heard Mr SS Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr BC Saikia, learned state counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and 2. Also heard Mr B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr GC Phukan, learned c ounsel for the respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the aforesaid stand taken by th e petitioner, has submitted that though the Deputy Commissioner, in the affidavi ts-in-opposition filed, has contended that there is no truth in the allegation o f tampering of documents levelled by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta, the Deputy Commission er could not produce any material before this Court to substantiate such claim b y producing any report. Learned counsel submits that even if the said Jayanta Da sgupta is not before this Court, since the petitioner, who, at the relevant poin t in time, was the Sub-registrar and such alleged forging was brought to his not ice, which was in turn brought to the notice of Deputy Commissioner, he ought to have made an enquiry in that regard which has not been done. Learned counsel, t herefore, submits that the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to cause an enqui ry to that effect and if necessary to lodge an FIR also, to find out the truth i n the allegation levelled by said Jayanta Dasgupta. Learned counsel has fairly s ubmitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been plac ed and is still under suspension. Learned state counsel, producing relevant records, has submitted that the record does not reveal making any enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner before recording the finding, as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed, that allegation of forgery of documents is incorrect. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that if t he Court directs, the Deputy Commissioner, who is the District Registrar, shall definitely make an enquiry. It has also been submitted that petitioner has level led a baseless allegation against the respondent no.3 and in fact since the peti tioner was not functioning in accordance with law, the SDO(C) was directed to lo ok into the matter and accordingly he made a visit to the office of the petition er and having found certain anomalies, he seized certain documents apart from pu tting the office under lock and key, which had subsequently been opened and is s till open as before. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. Learned state c ounsel further submits that involvement or otherwise of the respondent no.4, as alleged by the petitioner, in such forgery/tampering can be ascertained only aft er making an enquiry to that effect, and not at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has also submitted that some baseless al legations are levelled by the petitioner against the respondent no.3 and the res pondent no.3 visited the office of the Sub-registrar on the relevant date as per instruction of the Deputy Commissioner and having found some serious anomalies, he seized certain documents and put the office under lock and key, which had su bsequently been unlocked. It has also been submitted that since the petitioner h as already been placed under suspension, there is no question of returning those documents to him. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to ask for an enquiry into the alleged tampering/forging of documents, s ince the aggrieved person namely Jayanta Dasgupta has not come forward and pray before this Court for an enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that in any ca se the respondent no.4 is not involved in any illegal activity, as alleged, and it is because of the lodging of complaint by respondent no.4, the petitioner, as a retaliatory tactic, has levelled such unfounded allegation against the respon dent no.4. The admitted position in the case at hand is that the petitioner had bee n placed under suspension vide order dated 13th June, 2011 in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding to be initiated under the provisions of Assam Services Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1964. It is also not in dispute that the office o f the Sub-registrar, Hojai had been put under lock and key and subsequently been unlocked. That being the position, the first prayer made in this writ petition has became infructuous, as the documents seized by the SDO(C) while the petition er was in the office, cannot be returned to him after his suspension from servic e. The 4th prayer made in the writ petition has also became infructuous, in view of placing the petitioner under suspension. The only prayer left for considerat ion is to direct the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar to make an enqui ry into the alleged forgery of deeds executed by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta. As noticed above, such allegation has been made by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta in black and white on 26.11.10, on basis of which the petitioner had asked the r espondent no.4 to explain thereof. The respondent no.4 accordingly submitted his explanation on 20.12.2010. The petitioner, thereafter, informed the Deputy Comm issioner vide communication dated 28th December 2010 about such allegation ,as l evelled by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta. In the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Dis trict Registrar, as noticed above, it has been stated on oath that such allegati on was found to be incorrect and baseless. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 6th September 2011, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to produc e the relevant records of the enquiry conducted by him to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation of fudging of documents. Learned state counsel, prod ucing the relevant records, has submitted that the records do not show making an y enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner or by any officer subordinate to him into t he allegation of forgery of documents, as alleged by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta, and h ence the statements made by the Deputy Commissioner in the aforesaid two affidav its that such allegation is incorrect and baseless cannot be accepted, as such s tatement has been made without making any enquiry of whatsoever nature. Since su ch a serious allegation has been levelled by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta and informed t he Sub-registrar, that is the petitioner, who was in the office at the relevant point in time, and the Sub-rgistrar in turn also informed the District Registrar , it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot pray for a direction from this Co urt to make an enquiry to find out the truth or otherwise in the allegation. That being the position, this petition is disposed of directing the Depu ty Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Nagaon, to cause an enquiry into the afo resaid allegation made by Sri Jayanta Dasgupta vide letter dated 26th November, 2010 submitted before the Sub-registrar, Hojai, and after such administrative en quiry if any prima facie material is found, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar shall take required steps. The said exercise is directed to be comple ted by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Nagaon, within three moth s from today. Needless to say, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner th at from 17.1.2011 to the date of placing the petitioner under suspension, he has not been paid his monthly salary will definitely be considered and necessary or der shall be passed by the concerned authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.