State Of Up And Another vs Kumar Bhupendra Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 8814 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of Up And Another vs Kumar Bhupendra Singh on 9 April, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51893-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1030 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- State Of Up And Another
 
Respondent :- Kumar Bhupendra Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,Kunal Ravi Singh,Rama Nand Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

Heard Sri F.A. Ansari, learned counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.4136 of 2021 dated 02.01.2024, whereby reversion of the respondent ? petitioner from the post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the post of Tehsildar has been set aside.

Undisputed facts that emerge on record are that the respondent ? petitioner was appointed as Naib Tehsildar in March, 1996. He was promoted to the post of Tehsildar in 2008. He was further promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 11.05.2016. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent ? petitioner with service of charge sheet upon him on 24.12.2019. Charges essentially were two in number. First charge was that while posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut in the year 2016, the respondent ? petitioner effected mutation in revenue records in favour of builder M/s A to Z Builders on the basis of an exchange order passed by the competent authority under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act').

Charge was that the land offered to the builder was recorded as pasture and, therefore, by virtue of Section 132 of the Act, such land could not have been offered in exchange to the builder. Second charge was in respect of the alleged collusion between the respondent ? petitioner and the builder as a result of which such orders were passed. Inquiry in the matter was conducted by the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division Saharanpur who submitted his report on 03.06.2020. On the first charge with regard to legality of the mutation order, inquiry officer found that pasture land could not have been offered in exchange under Section 161 of the Act as the same was impermissible by virtue of Section 132 of the Act. On the second aspect relating to collusion, inquiry officer returned no finding against the respondent ? petitioner.

Relying upon the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of reversion dated 14.01.2021. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent ? petitioner in the matter on 16.07.2020. The respondent ? petitioner has submitted a reply whereafter the punishment order under challenge before learned Single Judge was passed on 14.01.2021. The disciplinary authority for the purpose of imposing punishment upon the respondent ? petitioner also made observations to the effect that the order of mutation was passed by the respondent ? petitioner with an intent to help the private builder and thereby suggesting that charge of collusion was also made out. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent ? petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

In the writ petition, affidavits were exchanged whereafter learned Single Judge by the judgment under challenge has allowed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that on the charge of collusion, no finding was returned by the inquiry officer against the respondent ? petitioner even though such charge was specifically contained in the charge sheet. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the disciplinary authority in the event intended to disagree with the conclusion of the inquiry officer on the second charge with regard to collusion, it was expected that the disciplinary authority would record reasons for such disagreement and afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent ? delinquent employee before holding him guilty on that charge. For coming to such conclusion, learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 84.

So far as the first charge is concerned, learned Single Judge has noticed the facts extensively. It is observed by learned Single Judge that initially an order of mutation was passed by the predecessor of the respondent ? petitioner on 28.05.2013. This order was subsequently recalled on 11.02.2014 after noticing the facts of the case, as per which mutation in respect of the pasture land was impermissible. The builder challenged this order in appeal before Additional Commissioner who by his order dated 27.08.2014 allowed the appeal and restored the original order of the year 2013 allowing the exchange. The order of the appellate authority was not challenged when the respondent-petitioner effected mutation in the revenue records in the year 2016. For the purposes of passing such order, the respondent ? petitioner took aid of the legal advice of the District Government Counsel who opined that there exists no hindrance in effecting the order of the appellate authority dated 27.08.2014. Having noticed such facts, learned Single Judge observed that action of the respondent ? petitioner in carrying out the orders of the appellate authority cannot be said to constitute any misconduct on the part of the respondent ? petitioner, particularly when on the aspect of collusion, no finding was returned by the disciplinary authority. Consequently, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with all consequential relief to the respondent ? petitioner.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been preferred by the State. Sri F.A. Ansari appearing for the State argues that sufficient material did exist on record to indicate collusion between the respondent ? petitioner and the builder and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority on second charge was clearly made out.

Learned counsel for the State-appellant also submits that even if procedure in terms of the law laid down in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) was not followed, the proper course available to the writ Court was to have given an opportunity to the State to proceed afresh from the stage such proceedings had gone bad. In support of such submission, learned State Counsel has place reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar 1993 (4) SCC 727. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Service Bench No.28207 of 2016 U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Sanjay Gupta. Learned State Counsel also submits that pasture land being a land for public utility could not have been offered in exchange by virtue of embargo contained under Section 132 of the Act and the respondent ? petitioner ought not to have allowed mutation after two years inasmuch as the proper course for him was to approach the higher authorities and challenge the appellate order before the competent forum.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner on the other hand defends the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that conclusions drawn by the Court are clearly based on materials available on record and the view taken by the Court otherwise is in consonance with the established principles of law. It is alleged that neither there is error on facts nor in law in the judgment of learned Single Judge which may require this Court to interfere in the matter.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon examination of the materials placed on record, we find that though a specific charge with regard to collusion was levelled against the respondent ? petitioner but inquiry officer in his report has not held him guilt on such charge. In the event the disciplinary authority intended to take a different view, it was obliged to have recorded reasons for such disagreement with the inquiry officer and afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee. This part of the procedure is well established and is recognized as facet of the principles of natural justice. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunj Bihari Mishra (supra) acknowledging such principle has been consistently followed. The view taken by learned Single Judge therefore to non-suit the State for non-compliance of the procedure, aforesaid cannot be faulted. What is argued by the State is that even if that be so, proper course would be to afford an opportunity to the State to proceed afresh from the stage such proceedings had gone bad.

Submission of the State Counsel though appears attractive, at the first blush, but a deeper consideration of the material on record persuades us not to accept such submission. The reason for it is simple.

Though our attention has been invited to various documents and materials which form part of the record but learned State Counsel has not been able to show any material available to the disciplinary authority on the basis of which an opinion could have been formed against the delinquent employee of collusion between him and the alleged builder. Such conclusion was permissible only if any material did exist on record.

Learned State Counsel has invited our attention to a preliminary inquiry report dated 24.11.2016, as per which process issued for mutation was not actually served. This report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saradhana has been examined by us. In this report, SDM has indicted the then Lekhpal Rajpal Singh as well as Revenue Inspector Mohd. Naseem and J.P. Mishra the then Tehsildar. In this report also, there is nothing on record to justify drawing of inference that it was a case of collusion on the part of the respondent ? petitioner. Since the disciplinary authority has also not referred to any material on the basis of which he could disagree with the opinion of the inquiry officer and proceed to hold the respondent ? petitioner guilty of collusion, we find that no material was placed on record of disciplinary enquiry and the basis of conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority was mere suspicion.

Once we find that there is no material of collusion brought on record of the disciplinary inquiry proceedings, no useful purpose would be served in granting liberty to the State to proceed afresh in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunj Bihari Mishra (supra).

On other aspect, we find that the order of exchange was actually passed by the predecessor of the respondent ? petitioner in the year 2013. This order although was set aside later on 14.02.2014, but on an appeal filed by the builder, the appellate authority set aside the order dated 14.02.2014 and restored the exchange order passed in the year 2013. The appellate order had not been challenged. The decision taken by the respondent ? petitioner to implement the order of the appellate authority therefore cannot be construed as an act of misconduct.

Though it may have been prudent for the respondent ? petitioner to have invited attention of the higher authority and make endeavour to challenge the order passed in appeal, but not following such course in itself would not lead to justifiable inference of any collusion or misconduct attributed to the respondent ? petitioner concerned. Our attention has also been invited to paragraph no.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal, according to which the Additional Commissioner who had passed the appellate order was punished by the disciplinary authority. The order of exchange was actually passed by one Akhand Pratap Singh in respect of the pasture land who has only been warned in the matter. The responsibility of the respondent ? petitioner, therefore, could not have been placed higher than that of Akhand Pratap Singh. The order of reversion in such circumstances could not have been passed when it was clearly established that neither exchange was allowed by the respondent - petitioner, under his own orders, nor there was any collusion on his part. Only material against him is the order of mutation passed by him which is in compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority. Complying with the order of the higher authority in quasi-judicial proceedings by the subordinate can by no stretch of imagination be said to be an act of misconduct.

The view taken by us finds support from a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2025 INSC 417 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under in paragraph no.16:

"16. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet fall under the category of a wrongful order, which does not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification. It appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the first question is answered in favor of the Appellant."

In view of deliberations held above, we find no error in the view taken by learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of punishment and directing consequential benefits to the respondent ? petitioner. The appeal filed by the State fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

rkg