MADAN MOHAN AHIR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 24. 1. 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge who had been pleased to dismiss the three writ petitions filed by the appellant-Madan Mohan Ahir challenging the order of dismissal from the service of Patwari.

(2.) IT is stated that three orders incorporating separate charges were issued on the appellant-Madan Mohan Ahir while functioning on the post of Patwari for 18 years and as per the charges incorporated and served on the appellant, it indicated that he had been alleged to have misappropriated Rs. 100/- while holding auction for plot of land and the allegation was that he had undervalued the property and auctioned it at Rs. 100/- only. The auction, therefore, was ordered to be cancelled by the competent authority and hence the appellant was legally required to refund Rs. 100/- to the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser initially lodged a FIR complaining that although the auction had been cancelled, the amount of Rs. 100/-, which had been realised from him by the appellant, was not refunded to him. On the basis of this charge, an inquiry was initiated and charge was framed against the appellant alleging misappropriation of Rs. 100/ -. A separate inquiry was initiated in regard to this charge wherein the appellant came up with the defence that there had been no misappropriation of Rs. 100/- as this amount had been refunded to the auction purchaser on the same date. Later, he also filed an affidavit confirming the fact that the appellant in fact had refunded the amount of Rs. 100/- to him. The Inquiry Officer, however, inferred that merely refunding the amount to the auction purchaser, when the inquiry was initiated against him, do not amount to absolving the delinquent of the charge of misappropriation and we find no infirmity in this reasoning for if the amount refunded by the person concerned was refunded after he was booked for misappropriation, the same cannot be held not to have been proved.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant Mr. Soni made an endeavor to impress upon this court that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer in regard to the charges levelled against him should not be held to have been proved, but having heard him at some length, we prima facie do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Inquiry Officer specially in the wake of the fact that the appellant had failed to disprove the charges, which were in regard to misappropriation of Rs. 100/- while holding the auction and dereliction of duty in doing the mutation entries and maintaining the records in regard to the mutation proceedings.