IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.14294 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 11.2.2008 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana & Others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.L. Puri, Advocate. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) Petitioner was working as a Patwari. He entered mutation No.1622 dated 3.7.2001 by showing, owner of land as dead, who was alive. When matter came to the notice of higher authorities, he was put under suspension. Thereafter, charge sheet was issued to him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals), Rules 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as “ the 1987 Rules”) for imposing major penalty upon him. On getting reply to the show cause notice, which was found unsatisfactory, Inquiry Officer was appointed, who gave full opportunities to the petitioner to represent his case. On completion of inquiry, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. On receipt of inquiry report dated 19.10.2005, the Punishing Authority issued him second show cause notice, along with a copy of the inquiry report. His reply was considered. Personal hearing was also given to him and the Punishing Authority ordered his termination from service on 10.1.2006 (P.3). Relevant portion of the order reads thus: “1. That he entered Mutation No.1622 of village Sorkhi in favour of Jagatpal etc, legal heirs by showing Dhupa s/o Birsala as dead whereas Dhupa is alive. 2. That he made a report that he has satisfied himself regarding the legal heirs of Dhupa deceased and there are no other CWP.NO.14294 of 2007 #2# legal heirs. Report was made on Mutation No.1522, which was certified to be wrong. 3. That he is a negligent official and he has made himself liable for departmental action by acting in an irresponsible manner.” Petitioner went in appeal, which was partly allowed on 13.12.2006 (P.5). Punishment of termination was set aside and he was reinstated in service in the initial pay scale meant for the post. Petitioner filed second appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which was filed vide order dated 28.3.2007 (P.7) on the ground that second appeal was not competent. When notice of motion was issued, following contentions of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court on 13.9.2007: “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the second appeal against the order Annexure P.5 was competent before the Financial Commissioner. Counsel has relied upon Rule 18(2) of the Haryana Revenue Patwaris Service Rules, 1981 read with Appendix 'B'.” In response to notice issued by us, reply has been filed. Counsel for the parties have been heard. At the time of issuing notice of motion, to get relief, reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Haryana Revenue Patwaris (Group C) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as “ 1981 Rules”). We feel that, to the petitioner, 1981 Rules are not applicable. The inquiry was instituted against him by invoking the provisions of 1987 Rules. To show that right of second appeal is available, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 20(2) of 1987 Rules. On perusal of the provision above, we feel that same is not applicable to the petitioner. That provision only says that the right of second appeal is available, in case, same has accrued in favour of an employee, before promulgation of 1987 rules and not thereafter. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been punished for showing negligence only, in the performance of his duty. We are not impressed with the arguments raised. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was charge sheeted for the following acts of omission and commissions: CWP.NO.14294 of 2007 #3# “Today i.e on 22.12.2005, Sh. Suresh Kumar Patwari had come present before me and he has again reiterated that due to being over-burdened with work and being busy, the said mistake occurred. He has not produced any satisfactory argument regarding his mis-conduct and in entering the mutation regarding succession by showing an alive person to be dead in favour of those persons, who were not real legal heirs. Before entering the mutation regarding succession, he did not peruse the death certificate and also did not make a report in the Roznamcha. Besides this, he has himself made a report on the original mutation that he has satisfied himself about the legal heirs whereas it was not proved to have been done. After giving personal hearing to Sh. Suresh Kumar Patwari and on perusing the facts available in the file, I have come to the conclusion that he got sanctioned the mutation regarding succession by entering the names of those persons in mutation, who were not real legal heirs by showing an alive person as dead. Therefore, his conduct was of a serious/grave nature and he is liable for the proposed punishment.” During inquiry, it was found, as a matter of fact, that the land owner with regard to whose property, mutation was entered, was still alive. Petitioner made no attempt to look into the death certificate before mutation was entered. It has further come on record that name of the legal heirs was also wrongly entered by the petitioner. We feel that entering mutation with regard to property of a person, who is still alive by showing him as dead is not expected from a revenue Patwari. No case is made out for interference. In appeal already very lenient punishment has been awarded upon the petitioner. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 11, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE