MUNNALAL DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed in the year 1972 on the post of Moharrir in the Municipal Corporation, Katni (for short 'Corporation'). He was promoted in 1988 to the post of Revenue Sub Inspector. On 4.5.1989 vide order Annexure P-1 he was assigned the duty of survey and assessment of property tax of the houses situated in the newly included villages Jhinjhuri and Amkuhi in the Corporation limits. Pursuant to the said order he conducted the survey of the houses including the quarters situated in village Jhinjhuri allotted by the village Panchayat to its employee. Though the said quarters were belonging to the village Panchayat and became property of the corporation, the petitioner recorded in the column 'owner of the proprty' of the property tax assessment register, the names of wives of the occupants of the said quarters. According to the respondents, the petitioner deliberately entered the names of wives of the employees as owner of the property to facilitate the occupants to grab the property and evade the taxes/rent of the Corporation. He was issued a charge sheet on 25.1.1992 (Annexure P-3) for the said misconduct. After holding the departmental enquiry, on the basis of enquiry report (Annexure R-6) the second respondent Commissioner of the Corporation held the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of property of the Corporation. A show cause notice (Annexure P-5) was issued to the petitioner in regard to the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner the Commissioner instead of inflicting upon him the proposed punishment of dismissal from service inflicted upon him punishment of reversion from the post of Revenue Sub Inspector to the post of Moharrir vide order dated 28.3.1992 (Annexure P-7). The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 6.7.1992 (Annexure P-9). The second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the State Government was also rejected vide detailed order dated 21.2.1994 (Annexure P-12). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that entering the names of occupants of the quarters in the column of owner was a bona fide mistake occurred on his part. He submits that this may be a negligence on his part but not a wilful act to facilitate the occupants of the said quarters to grab the property as by such wrong entry the occupants will not become owner of the said quarters. He submits that he was unaware of the fact that the said occupants were occupying the quarters allotted to them by erstwhile village Panchayat. He further submits that the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority to hold him guilty of misappropriation of the property is unsustainable. He alleged that the occupants of the houses who became employees of the Corporation by virtue of inclusion of village Panchayat in to the Corporation were also charge-sheeted along with him and were held guilty and punished. However the orders of punishment inflicted on those employees/occupants have been revoked, in the circumstances he submits that the punishment inflicted upon him deserves to be quashed.

(3.) ON going through the averments and after considering the respective contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is clear that the petitioner who was working on the post of Revenue Sub Inspector was assigned the job of assessment of property tax of the newly included villages in the Corporation limits. He conducted the survey of the aforesaid quarters. The occupants were allotted the quarters being employees of the village Panchayat but the petitioner entered the names of wives of the said employees in the column of owner of the property. Even assuming that because of such entry ownership would not have been transferred, still his act would have deprived the Corporation from the taxes or from the rent, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been not absolved from the liability. For such an act on the part of the petitoner he has rightly been punished by reversion order. In my view the respondents have already taken a lenient view by imposing penalty of reversion in place of proposed punishment of dismissal from service.