KARTIK KUMAR PRABHAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the impugned Judgement dated 2.03.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No.1858 of 2016, by the Hon'ble Single Judge, whereby, the writ application filed by the petitioner, challenging the orders of punishments imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as by the Appellate Authority, of stoppage of three annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect, stoppage of promotion for three years from the due date, and no payment except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, was dismissed.

(3.) The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The writ petitioner appellant, at the relevant time, was working as Land Reforms Deputy Collector at Ranchi, and in that capacity, he had granted the permission of transfer of the tribal lands in eleven cases, in favour of the wife of Anos Ekka, who was then a Minister in the State of Jharkhand, against whom, subsequently Vigilance and E.D. cases were lodged. No doubt, both the transferor and the transferee of the lands in all the cases belonged to the Scheduled Tribes, but in all these cases, there was allegation of granting permission for transfer of lands in violation of the provisions of Sections 46 and 48 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the 'CNT Act'), alleging that the transferee and her husband Anos Ekka, who was a Minister in the State, were residents of the Districts of Gumla / Simdega, and at the relevant time, they were living under Doranda Police Station, and accordingly, the transferee was not the resident of the local limits of the police stations, where the property were situated. The petitioner had violated the provisions of the CNT Act, with mala fide intention, and he had failed to protect the interests of the tribal people, in order to favour the persons in power. The fact however, also remains that all these transfers were ordered by the writ petitioner while exercising the quasi judicial power, and orders passed by the writ petitioner were appealable under Section 215 of the CNT Act, and against the appellate order, the revision was also maintainable under Section 217 of the CNT Act. In all those 11 cases, the State was a necessary party, but no appeal was filed by the State against any of the allegedly illegal order passed by the writ petitioner, though it has been brought on record by way of supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, that in three matters, the orders were challenged by the private parties, which were allowed by the appellate authority.