IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14523/2008 Decided on:30.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Netar Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was posted as Tehsildar at Palampur with effect from 1992 to January, 1998. He verified mutation on 26.7.1996 in favour of Jonsar son of Khellelu. Jonsar sold the land to Smt. Santosh Kumari daughter of Sh. Dev Raj and Joginder Pal son of Sh. Harbilas. He verified the mutation No. 925 on 28.12.1996. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 12.12.2005. He filed reply to the same on 21.1.2006. The inquiry was entrusted to respondent No.3, i.e. Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide letter dated 10.8.2006. 2. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj has strenuously argued that the initiation of departmental proceedings against his client is arbitrary and unreasonable. According to him, his client has been singled out though similarly situate persons have been let off. He then argued that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its independent mind while issuing memorandum dated 12.1.2005. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Palampur. He verified mutation on 26.7.1996 whereby the proprietary rights were conferred upon Jonsar. According to section 113 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the person upon whom the proprietary rights have been conferred cannot sell the land within a period of ten years. However, in the instant case, 3 Jonsar sold the land to Santosh Kumari and Joginder Pal within ten years. Petitioner had earlier verified the mutation on 26.7.1996 and thereafter again on 28.12.1996. It appears that the matter had also gone to the Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Department, as per the contents of the reply, forwarded the copy of the draft charge-sheet. The Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the same, has independently applied its mind and only thereafter issued memorandum on 12.12.2005. In the instant case, if the draft memorandum had been issued to the petitioner without due application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, it could be termed illegal. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj that similarly situate persons, who had verified the mutation within a period of ten years, have been let off. Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies in a positive manner. Only for the reason that no action has been taken against the similarly situate persons, will not entitle the petitioner to seek quashing of the departmental proceedings. Petitioner was a senior and responsible officer and was supposed to know the bare provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The contention of Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj that the petitioner 4 has only verified the mutation after the matter had been processed by the field agency, i.e. Patwari and Kanungo is fallacious. Petitioner ought to have applied his independent mind after taking into consideration whether the mutation could be verified within a period of ten years or not. Petitioner cannot be permitted to blame his subordinates for his illegal acts. 6. The present petition is also pre-mature. Petitioner should have faced the departmental proceedings instead of approaching the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has stayed the proceedings on 22.3.2007 without looking into the entire gamut of the case. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Order dated 22.3.2007 stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 30.8.2011 *awasthi*