SUBHASH PADAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Tehsildar serving in the Revenue Department of the State of Punjab. His case for promotion was under consideration in 2003 when he was served upon a charge -sheet dated February 28, 2003 for major misconduct committed in sanctioning mutation of land which was recorded in the ownership of the Provincial Government [Makbuja Deputy Commissioner] in favour of the Amritsar Diocese Trust Association, Amritsar. It is not disputed that the corpus land was with Church authorities for its management when the mutation was sanctioned in the presence of the notification dated March 23, 1948 issued by the Government of India with respect to corpus properties in favour of Churches located pan India for the Christian religious bodies to look after the building work and upkeep of the transferred properties but the ownership remained in the name of the Provincial Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur and, therefore, the mutation could not have been sanctioned.

(2.) THE notification dated March 23, 1948 issued by the Government of India and the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi was addressed to four High Ecclesiastical Persons on the subject of transfer of Churches, Church buildings etc. to Church authorities on winding up of the ecclesiastical affairs from the jurisdiction of the Central Government w.e.f. April 01, 1948. Meaning thereby, neither the Union of India nor the State governments would interfere in religious affairs of minorities and the properties would remain within the management of the respective churches to look after them beneficially. The notification forbade Church properties throughout India to be administered at State expense which would no longer be maintained by Governments from their funds and revenue. The details of the Churches and the authorities to whom the properties will be transferred and other particulars are given in the notification, a copy of which has been placed as Annexure P -3 with the writ petition from running pages 40 to 56. It is noteworthy that throughout the text of the notification the word "transfer" has been used of the scheduled properties to Church authorities concerned but meant of management of corpus and not transfer of proprietary rights. It was also decided that those Churches and Church buildings situated in Cantonment lands, the sites of the buildings and the Church compounds, if when no longer required by Church authorities for the purposes for which they are intended, then corpus will revert to the Government concerned to be dealt with by it.

(3.) THE pith and substance of the charge levelled against the petitioner is that he sanctioned mutation No. 1030 dated December 02, 2002 of provincial corpus land measuring 116 Kanal 9 Marlas situated at village Madhopur Cantonment, Tehsil Pathankot in favour of ADTA (Registered) Aglicon Church CIPBC C/o. Chairman while the land in the revenue record stood in the name of the Provincial Government. By doing this act, he had committed irregularities and illegalities in changing the ownership while only maintenance rights were bestowed by the Government of India on Church authorities since they would no longer be looked after at State expense. The revenue record had held in good stead for 54 years when the mutation was sanctioned contrary to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 when even ownership of State cannot be denied after 12 years. Still further, the petitioner was accused of registering sale deeds based on mutation of land measuring 72 kanals in favour of late Sh. Sandeep Singh son of Sh. Rajinder Singh etc. for a sale consideration of Rs. 29.25 lacs on December 05, 2002 on the basis of General Power of Attorney whereas the market price of the land was 7 to 8 crores approximately thereby causing financial loss of Rs. 47 lacs approximately on stamp duty to Government revenue in registering sale deeds at the lesser rate.