MAN MOHAN SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to decide the review/representation of the petitioner dated 16.8.1996 as also to issue writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25.9.1986 and 30.6.1992 passed by the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 11.3.1950; that the petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar in the year 1956 and was subsequently confirmed on the said post in the year 1961; that the petitioner was given charge of Deputy Collector and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1974; that on 5.6.1984 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner leveling the only charge that when he was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra in the year 1975-78 some land was a acquired for 220 KV sub station and for staff quarters and while preparing the award in case No. 268, 270 and 279 the sale-deed dated 5.8.1974 was taken as exemplar and submitted the proposal of award to the Board of Revenue for a sum of Rs. 11,93,699.25 paise; that on objection by the Board of Revenue subsequently another proposal was made by the petitioner as directed by the Board of Revenue and sent the same for approval for an amount of Rs. 6,30,550.37 paise; that on 17.6.1984 the Regional Food Commissioner, Agra was appointed Enquiry Officer who called explanation of the petitioner; that on 25.6.1984 the petitioner demanded the relevant documents relating to the case, which were not given to him; that on 27.8.1984 an interim explanation was submitted by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer annexing therewith the Photostat copies of the judgment of L.A. Case No. 70 of 1978 decided by VIth A.D.J., Agra on 9.3.1984 and L.A. Case No. 48 of 1978 decided by Vth A. D.J. Agra on 7.10.1983; that on 25.9.1986 respondent No. 2 passed an order of reduction of pension of the petitioner by 10% against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected on 30.6.1992. The petitioner filed a review application but no decision has been taken on the same.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that the punishment has been made merely on probability; the award proposed was subject to approval of the Board of Revenue as per Government order; on the objection of the Board of Revenue the petitioner revised the award as per directions and as such there was no mis-conduct on his part; that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal; that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was against the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution as no reasonable opportunity was given and that the punishment given to the petitioner deducting 10% of pension is illegal as the District Judge in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made award @ Rs. 5/- per sq. yard which was initially proposed by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue for approval and the said order has become final as no appeal was filed by the State.