IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 4 of 2008 Reserved on: 18.3.2009 Date of decision: 1.4.2009 Mohammed Iqbal Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. N.D.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure-C, dated 3rd November, 1966 whereby he has been dismissed from service. This order has been upheld by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal vide order dated 11th March, 1982. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that he while working as Patwari in Chamba District misused his position in getting the land of one Mst. Minjru Devi mutated in his favour. The second charge is that the petitioner misused his position in getting the land of his brother Mohammed Sardar, who had migrated to Pakistan in 1947, entered in his favour in the revenue record. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 The admitted facts are that the petitioner was working as a Patwari in District Chamba and he was also handling the work of the custodian branch of the office of the Deputy Commissioner during that period. Land comprising 3174 sq. yards in Khasra No. 7342 situated in Mohalla Julakari belong to one Mst. Minjru. She migrated to Pakistan on the partition of the country in the year 1947. According to the respondents she never came back to India but the petitioner produced some lady who was not actually Mst. Minjru before the revenue officials and got the land of Mst.Minjru entered in his name. The other charge which is similar is that 5559- 8 sq.yards of land situate in Chamba town belong to Mohd. Sardar brother of the petitioner. Mohd. Sardar, admittedly migrated to Pakistan in 1947. This land was also got transferred by the petitioner in his name on the basis of an alleged false report No.230 dated 27.1.1960. It would be pertinent to note that both these lands, originally belong to Mst. Minjru and Mohd. Sardar, were entered in the revenue records in the name of the custodian of evacuee property. No notification has been produced showing that this land was actually declared to be evacuee land but the fact remains that in the revenue record this land was shown as belonging to the custodian of evacuee property. The main ground of the petitioner before the two authorities below was that these lands were transferred in his name by the original owner Mst. Minjru and in respect of the land held by his brother the petitioner urged that his family owned certain land in 3 Sialkot and even prior to partition of the country a partition had taken place between the brothers and Mohd. Sardar was given the lands in Sialkot whereas the petitioner Mohd. Iqbal was given the lands in Chamba. Both the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner have come to finding of fact that Mst. Minjru never came to India. If she had not come to India how could she have appeared before revenue officials? Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that any partition had taken place between the petitioner and his brother Mohd. Sardar before partition of the country. In fact, the petitioner has failed to place on record any material what-so-ever to show that his family owned any land in Sialkot prior to partition of the country. Another very important aspect of the matter is that the land was shown to be in the possession/ownership of the custodian of evacuee property. This entry may have been right or wrong, however, the land could not have been mutated in favour of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the department to put-forth its views. Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have rightly held that the petitioner misused his position in getting the revenue record changed in his favour. In case, notice had been given to the custodian of evacuee property, the said department could have put- forth its views in the matter. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report and therefore, there is violation of law and hence the order 4 dismissing him from service is liable to be set-aside. It may be mentioned that in the appeal filed by the petitioner he had not made any allegation that he had not been supplied copy of the inquiry report. This was a question of fact which he should have asserted at the first stage itself. The inquiry was held prior to the year 1966. For the first time when the writ petition was filed in the year 1982 this ground was raised. It appears that this ground was raised only in view of the subsequent law laid down by the Apex Court, therefore, this contention is rejected. It is contended by Shri N.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Deputy Commissioner had issued the charge- sheet and also passed the final order and therefore, the final order should be set-aside. This argument has been made to be rejected. There is nothing which prohibits the disciplinary authority from issuing the charge sheet. In the present case, the inquiry was conducted by some other official. Shri N.D.Sharma has placed great reliance on an order passed by the Civil Court while deciding certain preliminary issues. This order was passed much after the disciplinary authority had passed the order in the present case. Even if it be assumed that the property was not properly vested with the custodian of evacuee property then also as held above the least that was required was that notice was required by the department. It was further contended that neither Mst. Minjru nor Mohd. Sardar was produced by the petitioner. He also states that petitioner was not given any opportunity to examine these 5 witnesses. Mohd. Sardar is the brother of the petitioner and he could have been produced by the petitioner himself. As far as Mst. Minjru is concerned, the petitioner could have summoned the record from the Immigration Department of the Union of India to prove that Mst. Minjru had entered India at the time when she allegedly appeared before the Revenue Officials. We find that the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with the law and in accordance with the rules of natural justice. We are also of the considered view that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner. A Patwari who misuses his position to get land of other parties entered in his name is indulging in criminal offences and cannot be shown any leniency. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 1, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja), J. ™