SITARAM MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The original petitioner has been substituted by his legal heirs on account of his death during the pendency of the writ application. The original petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.7.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag which was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribag vide order dated 6.10.1987 passed in Service Appeal No. 15 of 1985. The petitioner's revision directed against the aforesaid orders before the Board of Revenue also stood dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1995 passed in the case no. 69/21-8/1988. All these 3 orders are under challenge in the present writ application.

(3.) According to the original petitioner, he was working as Anchal Amin having appointed in Keredari block under Dist. Hazaribag on 15.10.1957, subsequently transferred to Ramgarh block in December 1967 and again, thereafter, took charge of Karmachari at Ramgarh Anchal , Hazaribag in December, 1977. The petitioner was in-charge of collection of revenue of Halka No. 2 comprising 12 villages where after he was transferred to Ithkhori Anchal in March 1982 and from 3.1.1983 he was placed under suspension for issuing rent receipts illegally to different raiyats in respect of valuable lands of the Government. On 28.9.1983 he was served with charge sheet and asked to show cause as to why he should not be held guilty for the alleged misconduct . He presented himself before the Inquiry Officer, who, thereafter, proceeded to make recommendation for removal of the petitioner from his service, which according to learned counsel is contrary to the settled law. The petitioner was denied opportunity and never given a copy of the documents which formed the basis of the alleged charge for which he requested on three occasion before the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was served upon him on 7.5.1984, where after, order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag which according to the him is cryptic as well as erroneous. The petitioner has also made grievance that the Appellate Authority in his order dated 6.10.1987 has failed to deal with the specific grounds of the appeal made by him which is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal & others Vrs. Kharak Singh, 2008 8 SCC 236. Counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the revisional order on the ground that although the Revisional Authority observed that the Circle Officer was also responsible for issuing orders of mutation in respect of the same lands for which petitioner was held to be guilty for issuing rent receipt, but the petitioner has been solely made responsible for the same, although he had acted upon the orders of the competent authority.