KUNWAR DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 1089/2003 and Writ Petition No. 5314/2003 are being disposed of by this common order as both these petitions are filed by one Shri Kunwar Dilip Singh challenging the charge -sheet issued to him and the order of termination in pursuance to the charge -sheet under challenge.

(2.) W .P. No. 5510/2004 was initially filed by the petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, the same stands transferred to this Court. In this petition, petitioner has challenged the letter dated 1 -2 -1999 Annexure P -1 and the charge -sheet dated 6 -1 -1996 Annexure P -2 issued to him and the prayer made is to quash the charge -sheet and the departmental enquiry initiated against him. During the pendency of this petition departmental enquiry continued and culminated in passing an order of punishment dated 27 -3 -2003 filed as Annexure P -1 in W.P. No. 1089/2003. The enquiry proceedings and the final order of punishment are challenged in WP No. 1089/2003. As questions involved are similar, both the petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, documents filed in WP No. 1089/2003 are being referred to. Petitioner was holding the post of Naib -Tahsildar and was posted at Tahsil Lahar District Bhind in the year 2003, when the order terminating him from service Annexure P -1 dated 27 -3 -2003 was issued. In the year 1993, petitioner was Naib Tahsildar at Tahsil Essagarh District Guna. While petitioner was posted as Naib Tahsildar at Essagarh he had exercised powers conferred upon him under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and had decided various cases pertaining to settlement of land. He was also discharging function in the matter of allotment of Government land to landless persons in accordance with statutory rules, on the ground that he had committed serious irregularities and illegalities in the matter of allotment of land, charge -sheet dated 6 -1 -1996 was issued to him. In the charge -sheet there was two imputations pertaining to irregularities committed by the petitioner in the matter of settlement of land. It is alleged that in 40 cases decided by him during the period from 1990 to 1993, orders with regard to settlement of land were passed illegally with a view to give undue benefit to certain persons, who were not entitled Jo the benefit and finding large scale of illegalities in the matter. Additional District Collector, Ashok Nagar had taken up ten cases in suo -motu revision, has quashed the orders passed by the petitioner. Second allegations in the charge -sheet were that while considering applications for allotting the land to landless persons under the statutory provisions and rules. Petitioner had committed various irregularities and on preliminary enquiry it is found that without following rules, regulations and guidelines issued in the matter undeserving persons were allotted land and Bhumiswami rights were conferred on them. It was stated that in many cases petitioner has illegally granted Bhumiswami rights to the persons, who were not landless persons and therefore has committed misconduct in accordance with provisions of Rules 3(1)(2)(3) of the M.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965 and therefore proceedings in accordance with provisions of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 were initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner having denied the charges, enquiry was ordered and Additional District Collector, Ashok Nagar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After conclusion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report Annexure P -3 dated 15 -4 -1998. Alter receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He was given opportunity of personal hearing and after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner order of termination Annexure P -1 was issued him on 27 -3 -2003.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid Shri S.S. Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that action taken in this case is because of serious misconducts committed by the petitioner in the matter of discharging of his duties, he had illegally passed orders of settlement and allotment of land in a manner, which was contrary to the statutory provisions, inconsistent to the rules and regulations with a view to give undue benefit to undeserving persons and thereby committed acts unbecoming of a Government employee for which enquiry was properly conducted. Allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved in a properly conducted departmental enquiry in which due and reasonable opportunities of defence was given to the petitioner and action taken in the: matter being in accordance with law. It is argued by learned Counsel for the respondents that no case for interference is made out.