AMAR PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Provincial Civil Service['PCS' for short] of the State. He is aggrieved by initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him and prays that the charge-sheet dtd. 18/8/2023 issued to him by the State Government, initiating proceedings under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999['Rules of 1999' for short] be quashed. There is another prayer, which says that a mandamus be issued to the respondents, ordering them to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously. Though the second prayer is not expressed to be one made in the alternative, but, the two are so diametrically opposed to each other that they have to be regarded as prayers made in the alternative.

(2.) The petitioner was selected to the PCS of the State by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission['UPPSC' for short] and appointed a Sub-Divisional Magistrate['SDM' for short] on 4/6/2005. He is an officer of the 2004 batch of the UPPSC. He was next promoted to the post of a City Magistrate in the year 2015, and then, an Additional District Magistrate in the year 2016. He was posted as an Additional Commissioner in the year 2022 and since then, is working as the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda in the Divisional Commissionerate there.

(3.) A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18/8/2023 under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. The substance of the charge carried in the charge-sheet against the petitioner is that while posted as the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow, he granted permission under Sec. 98 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006['Code' for short] to bhumidhar belonging to the Scheduled Caste['SC' for short] to transfer land to persons other than members of the SC, ignoring the report of the SDM that there was no description of the land held by the vendor, the medical necessity certificate and the non-encumbrance certificate. In one of the files relating to transfer, there was no report by the SDM. The imputation further goes that though these certificates are enclosed with the relevant files moved to seek permission for transfer, there is neither mention of these certificates nor the report of the SDM, saying that the certificates are not there in the order passed by the petitioner, permitting transfers. The transferees from the members of the SC later on sold off their land to the Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority['UPEIDA' for short] for valuable consideration, causing loss on one hand to the Gaon Sabha by transferring land belonging to the Gaon Sabha, unauthorizedly and deceitfully, and on the other, loss to the exchequer. The charge ultimately is that if the petitioner had been vigilant in granting permission for transfer, carefully examining the record of Gaon Sabha, the land in question would not have been sold and loss of money to the exchequer eschewed. The act, according to the charge-sheet, constituted gross negligence and serious irregularity, showing the petitioner to be prima facie guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956['Rules of 1956' for short].