AJAY PRAKASH DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. The petitioner is challenging the charge -sheet dated 10 -10 -2003 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition). A perusal of the charge -sheet shows that the petitioner has done mutation on the basis of an unregistered sale -deed. It is well settled that immovable property can only be transferred by registered sale -seed. Hence, in our opinion, this certainly amounts to misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Hence, departmental proceedings can be taken against the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the order is judicial/quasi -judicial, hence no departmental proceedings can be taken against the petitioner particularly when an appeal is pending against the order. We do not agree. No doubt, a Judge can also err, and can make mistakes. However, this refers only to bona fide mistakes. If a Judge passes an order for extraneous considerations not only can an appeal/revision/writ be filed for setting aside that order, but departmental proceedings can also be instituted against him for having passed a deliberately wrong order vide Hare Singh v. Governor, (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1456 and Ram Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P., 2001(2) LBESR 811(All) : (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2351.

(2.) THUS , there is no force in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.