Case: Josodhar Misra Vs. State of Bihar and Others

these points which was point No. 3 before the High Court is that the Commissioners order of dismissal was influenced by the further comments which were made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector and since these comments were taken into consideration by the Commissioner behind the back of the appellant, opportunity was denied to the appellant to meet these comments which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It seems to us impossible to accept this contention. When the Commissioner issued the show cause notice to the appellant as regards the proposed punishment, he had by his order of even date informed the appellant that the representation should be submitted to the Addl. Collector, that the Addl. Collector would forwarded the representation with his own comments to the Collector and that the Collector in turn will forward the representation with his own comments to the Commissioner. The appellant thus knew when he made his representation to the Commissioner against the proposed punishment that the Addl. Collector and the Collector will, as directed by the Commissioner, offer their comments on his representation. In spite of this, the appellant did not ask the Commissioner to disclose to him as to what comments were made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector on his representation. Apart from the fact that the appellant did not ask for any opportunity to meet the comments made by the two officers, it is important to bear in mind that the comments made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector pertain solely to the representation made by the appellant as regards the proposed punishment and did not refer to any new or undisclosed facts which were not on the record. The facts on which the Commissioner proposed that the particular order of punishment be passed were taken on the record in the presence of the appellant and he was afforded full and effective opportunity to meet each piece of the evidence which was adduced in the case. The Commissioner had already recorded a finding that all the charges levelled against the appellant were established on the evidence led in the case, that he had formed the opinion that charges 1 & 2 were tentatively proved and that he proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal in respect of those charges. In view of this position we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice.9. We would also like to add that when the appellants appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue the entire record, including the comments made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector was available to the appellant and he could have made his contentions which he desired in regard thereto. He did not make any grievance that he was prejudiced because copies of the documents were not supplied to him.10. There is equally no substance in points 4 and 5 which were argued before the High Court. Point No. 5 is to the effect that the finding in respect of charge No. 2 was based on no evidence. We do not understand this contention since there is clear evidence in the case to show that persons in whose favour lands were settled were not in possession thereof at any time as tenants and, in fact, those persons did not even belong to the village. The contention of the appellant in the enquiry was that he acted mechanically on the report which was submitted to him by his subordinate officers and that it was no part of his duty to satisfy himself whether the report was justified. This contention of the appellant runs counter to Rule 145 of the Boards Miscellaneous Rules which says in so far as is relevant that "Kanungos are executive revenue officers who are expected to pass the greater part of their time in the muffassil on out-door work". As observed by the High Court, a Kanungo who forwards his report regarding the abatement of rent and settlement of lands with new tenants cannot, consistently with the rules, be permitted to take a plea that his responsibility is only of a ministerial kind and that he is merely a forwarding agency. We are satisfied that it was the appellants duty to pay visit to the locality in which the lands were situated and to satisfy himself whether the report in regard to the settlement of lands was made in accordance with the rules. It is undeniable that the settlements was made with persons who did not belong to the village and who were not tenants of the lands.11. The last contention of Mr. Ramamurthy is that certain valuable documents which would have enabled the appellant to establish his innocence were withheld from him during the enquiry. It is true that certain documents were found missing but the evidence on the basis of which charge No. 2 which is the principal charge, has been held to have been established is the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shri Tudu, and the evidence of the Khas Mahal Tahsildar whose earlier report Ext. 2 was on the record of the case. The two reports were taken on the record in the presence of the appellant and he was accorded full opportunity to meet these reports. The appellant did not, at any stage take the plea that he had actually visited the site and had satisfied himself that the report made by the officers was correct. Were he to take any such plea it might have become relevant that certain important papers were withheld from him. The appellants limited contention was that the primary responsibility for making the recommendation was that of the Khas Mahal Tahsildar, that his own function was purely of administerial nature and that no order for the settlement of lands was made independently by him. As we have stated earlier it is impossible, in view of the rules governing the matter to accept this contention.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The first of these points which was point No. 3 before the High Court is that the Commissioners order of dismissal was influenced by the further comments which were made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector and since these comments were taken into consideration by the Commissioner behind the back of the appellant, opportunity was denied to the appellant to meet these comments which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It seems to us impossible to accept this contention. When the Commissioner issued the show cause notice to the appellant as regards the proposed punishment, he had by his order of even date informed the appellant that the representation should be submitted to the Addl. Collector, that the Addl. Collector would forwarded the representation with his own comments to the Collector and that the Collector in turn will forward the representation with his own comments to the Commissioner. The appellant thus knew when he made his representation to the Commissioner against the proposed punishment that the Addl. Collector and the Collector will, as directed by the Commissioner, offer their comments on his representation. In spite of this, the appellant did not ask the Commissioner to disclose to him as to what comments were made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector on his representation. Apart from the fact that the appellant did not ask for any opportunity to meet the comments made by the two officers, it is important to bear in mind that the comments made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector pertain solely to the representation made by the appellant as regards the proposed punishment and did not refer to any new or undisclosed facts which were not on the record. The facts on which the Commissioner proposed that the particular order of punishment be passed were taken on the record in the presence of the appellant and he was afforded full and effective opportunity to meet each piece of the evidence which was adduced in the case. The Commissioner had already recorded a finding that all the charges levelled against the appellant were established on the evidence led in the case, that he had formed the opinion that charges 1 & 2 were tentatively proved and that he proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal in respect of those charges. In view of this position we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice.9. We would also like to add that when the appellants appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue the entire record, including the comments made by the Addl. Collector and the Collector was available to the appellant and he could have made his contentions which he desired in regard thereto. He did not make any grievance that he was prejudiced because copies of the documents were not supplied to him.10. There is equally no substance in points 4 and 5 which were argued before the High Court. Point No. 5 is to the effect that the finding in respect of charge No. 2 was based on no evidence. We do not understand this contention since there is clear evidence in the case to show that persons in whose favour lands were settled were not in possession thereof at any time as tenants and, in fact, those persons did not even belong to the village. The contention of the appellant in the enquiry was that he acted mechanically on the report which was submitted to him by his subordinate officers and that it was no part of his duty to satisfy himself whether the report was justified. This contention of the appellant runs counter to Rule 145 of the Boards Miscellaneous Rules which says in so far as is relevant that "Kanungos are executive revenue officers who are expected to pass the greater part of their time in the muffassil onwork". As observed by the High Court, a Kanungo who forwards his report regarding the abatement of rent and settlement of lands with new tenants cannot, consistently with the rules, be permitted to take a plea that his responsibility is only of a ministerial kind and that he is merely a forwarding agency. We are satisfied that it was the appellants duty to pay visit to the locality in which the lands were situated and to satisfy himself whether the report in regard to the settlement of lands was made in accordance with the rules. It is undeniable that the settlements was made with persons who did not belong to the village and who were not tenants of the lands.11. The last contention of Mr. Ramamurthy is that certain valuable documents which would have enabled the appellant to establish his innocence were withheld from him during the enquiry. It is true that certain documents were found missing but the evidence on the basis of which charge No. 2 which is the principal charge, has been held to have been established is the report of theMagistrate, Shri Tudu, and the evidence of the Khas Mahal Tahsildar whose earlier report Ext. 2 was on the record of the case. The two reports were taken on the record in the presence of the appellant and he was accorded full opportunity to meet these reports. The appellant did not, at any stage take the plea that he had actually visited the site and had satisfied himself that the report made by the officers was correct. Were he to take any such plea it might have become relevant that certain important papers were withheld from him. The appellants limited contention was that the primary responsibility for making the recommendation was that of the Khas Mahal Tahsildar, that his own function was purely of administerial nature and that no order for the settlement of lands was made independently by him. As we have stated earlier it is impossible, in view of the rules governing the matter to accept this contention.