SYED AKHTAR RIZVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application the Petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 15-12-1986 (Annexure 1) passed by the Respondent Commissioner by which he has affirmed the order dated 3.6.1986 (Annexure 2) of the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) awarding punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner in a departmental proceeding.

(2.) During the material period 1981-82, the Petitioner was posted as Revenue Karamchari in Churchu Anchal of Hazaribagh District. He was subjected to a departmental proceeding. As is evident from the charge-sheet dated 5.5.1983 (Annexure 5), the charge against him was that though one Smt. Rojline Remen was in possession of Plot No. 44 measuring 0.50 Decimals and Plot No. 48 measuring 0.80 Decimals of village Bujurgnano lying in Mandu P.S. for a long time and she had been residing thereon by constructing a house and well, but the Petitioner with malafide intentions forwarded a proposal for settlement of the said lands in favour of one Rameshwar Bhuiyan. Thereupon Land Settlement Record No. 16/80-81/7/81-82 was opened and the said lands were settled in favour of the said Rameshwar Bhuiyan. The said illegalities having been brought to the notice of the higher authorities by Smt. Rojline Remen, enquiries were made and it was found that the Petitioner had made wrong proposals to deprive the said tribal lady of her rightful claim. After a duly conducted departmental proceeding the Respondent Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order (Annexure 2). He found the Petitioner guilty of fabricating official records in order to deprive a bonafide tribal lady of her rightful claim. Accordingly, considering the said act a gross misconduct, the Petitioner was dismissed from service.

(3.) Against the said order of punishment (Annexure 2) the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent Commissioner As it appears from the records and also admitted by Mr. Banerjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the only question which was raised in appeal was regarding the quantum of punishment. The challenge was based on the ground that the Circle Inspector, Guljar Ram, who had acted on the proposal of the Petitioner and thereby passed an order of settlement in favour of the proposee Rameshwar Bhuiyan, had been awarded only a minor punishment of stoppage of increment in a separately drawn departmental proceeding. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, it was unjust to award a major punishment of dismissal against him. The learned Commissioner did not feel pursuaded with the said plea and dismissed the appeal by holding that the Circle Inspector had merely acted on the basis of the proposal and the materials placed by the Petitioner before him. Therefore, according to the appellate authority the illegality committed in settlement of the lands in question in favour of an unauthorised person has to be primarily and essentially attributed to the Petitioner it has also been noticed by him that from the records it is clearly established that the Petitioner had tried to distort and conceal the facts in such a manner so that the poor tribal lady may not get her due.