S.N. BYADWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging charge-sheet dated 23.06.1992 issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules'), and order dated 05.09.1997 by which he was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension.

(2.) Charge against petitioner was that he, while working as Officer-on-Special-Duty, Agriculture Land Conversion (Regularization) Jaipur, conferred undue benefit upon Smt. Triveni Devi Surekha and Shri Rajendra Kumar Surekha by recognising their title over land measuring 449.79 Sq. Yard and 713.33 Sq.Yd., respectively, on the basis of adverse possession, under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and issued a land conversion order accordingly. Charge No.2 against petitioner was to the effect that he thereby violated Rules 5 and 8 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion and Allotment of Agriculture Land) Rules, 1978, and while doing so, he did not issue any notice to former Maharajah of Jaipur who was adversely affected by the said order and issued 'patta' in favour of above referred to two persons on 30.10.1981. This issue was debated in on the floor of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and an enquiry was held by the then Lokayukta of the State also, who recommended disciplinary action against petitioner, and that is why, charge-sheet was served upon him though with certain delay, and ultimately penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension was imposed upon him.

(3.) Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that petitioner merely ordered to recover conversion charges from Smt. Triveni Devi Surekha and Rajendra Kumar Surekha because the disputed property was residential property. Former Maharajah of Jaipur or his power of attorney holder never challenged the order of conversion passed by petitioner. No new rights were conferred by petitioner upon those two persons and on the contrary, petitioner by recovering conversion charges enhanced Government revenue and acted in the interest of the Government. He did so according to policy of the Government and assurance given by the Government to the Assurance Committee of the Legislative Assembly. It is contended that the land, in dispute, was not agriculture land. It was adjacent to Hathroi fort and in fact was part of said fort, which was earlier in the ownership of former Maharajah Jaipur as per the Government record. The former Maharajah of Jaipur sold the plots on this land through his power of attorney holder, which scheme was named as 'Hathroi Gopal Bari Scheme', to 150-200 persons and plots in question were merely two plots out of those so many. Same policy was applied to every one. Neither any ill-will nor any ulterior motive could therefore be attributed to petitioner for conversion of these two plots. It is contended that petitioner in his tenure decided near about 70 cases of this nature. In any case, there was no direct loss caused to the Government because the land in dispute was not a Government land and if it was a private land i.e. the land of former Maharajah of Jaipur, either he or his power of Attorney could have objected to it. The disciplinary proceedings against petitioner were wholly misconceived and uncalled for.