MOHAMMAD AZIM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A departmental inquiry was held against the Appellant who is a Revenue Inspector, on a number of charges. The Deputy Commissioner, late Sbri R.C. Dube, agreeing generally with the report of the inquiring officer found most of the charges proved against the Revenue Inspector and came to the conclusion that the Revenue Inspector should be dismissed from service as all the charges were severally and jointly proved against him. Necessary show cause notice was, therefore, served on the Appellant as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and after hearing the Revenue Inspector finally, the learned Deputy Commissioner confirmed his tentative conclusion of dismissal but did not pass a formal order as a question arose whether an order of dismissal, in the case of a Revenue Inspector, should be passed by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Director, Land Records. A reference was, therefore, made by him to the Director, Land Records, enquiring if it would be competent for him to pass order in the case. The Director, Land Records, vide his memo, dated 7 -1 -56, informed the Deputy Commissioner that the latter was empowered to punish a Revenue Inspector. But, in the meantime Shri Dube died before passing final order. The successor Deputy Commissioner, therefore, issued a fresh notice to the Appellant and reheard him. He held the following charges proved and ordered the dismissal of the Revenue Inspector:

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant raised a number of preliminary legal objections which it would be necessary to examine at some length before I go into the merits of the case, as considerable emphasis was laid on the legal issues involved.

(3.) IT was further stated that on the date the Appellant was appointed the power of appointing a Revenue Inspector rested with the Commissioner of the Division and not with the Deputy Commissioner of the district. A Hindi copy of the Land Records Manual, Vol. II (Revenue Inspectors) was produced before me to show that as a result of amendment of Rule 3 contained in Government Notification No. 74/XVII, dated 21 -3 -27, the power of appointing Revenue Inspectors was taken away from the Commissioners only from February 1936. Since the Appellant was appointed in January 1936 it was argued that in January 1936 the Deputy Commissioner could not possibly appoint a Revenue Inspector.