Gautam Kumar Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4372 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010010512015




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1563/2015

            GAUTAM KUMAR SARMA
            S/O LOHIT CHANDRA SARMA, R/O HATIGARH CHARIALI, GUWAHATI,
            DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS,
            REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND
            D.M. DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

            2:THE DY. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             REGISTRATION DEPTT.
             DISPUR
             GHY-6

            3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
            ASSAM
             RUPNAGAR
             GHY-32
             DIST- KAMRUP
            ASSAM

            4:THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DY. COMMISSIONER
             KAMRUP METRO
            ASSAM

            5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL
             RANGIA
             DIST- KAMRUP RURAL
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.N G KUNDU
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/4


Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J HANDIQUE, SC, REVENUE DEPARTMENT




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                       JUDGMENT

Date : 10-11-2022

Heard Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Handique, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 being the authorities under the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam and Ms. M D Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents no. 4 and 5 respectively being the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rangia.

2. The petitioner who was a Sub-Registrar under the District Registrar, Kamrup(M) was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding as per the show cause notice bearing no. RGN.67/2007/104 dated 27.12.2007. The core allegation in the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was that although by an administrative notification no. GAG(B) 181/009/91 dated 31.03.2003 the jurisdiction for registration in respect of Rangia area was curved out from the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar at Guwahati. The petitioner in exercise of his duties in the year 2006 had registered two Sale Deeds pertaining to Rangia area which according to the disciplinary proceeding was a misconduct.

3. The disciplinary proceeding resulted in the order dated 06.09.2012 by which a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. After the punishment was imposed, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 6190/2013 raising an issue that subsequent to the aforesaid notification no. GAG(B) 181/009/91 dated 31.03.2003, another notification dated 31.10.2003 was also issued by which it was provided that as it would take some further time to make administrative arrangements for the bifurcation to be given its effect, and therefore, the authorities under the Kamrup (M) may continue to also exercise the jurisdiction of the bifurcated areas which also includes the Rangia area.

4. Accordingly, a stand is sought to be taken by the petitioner that the basis of the Page No.# 3/4

allegation made against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding would remain unsubstantiated inasmuch as because of the subsequent notification of 31.10.2003 permitting the petitioner to even register documents pertaining to Rangia area, the act on the part of the petitioner would not constitute any misconduct.

5. WP(C) No. 6190/2013 was given its consideration by the order dated 01.11.2013 by permitting the petitioner to submit a representation raising the aforesaid issue and upon such representation being made, the authority concerned to give a due consideration.

6. The very provision of the order of the Court dated 01.11.203 in WP(C) No. 6190/2013 allowing the petitioner to submit a representation raising the aforesaid issue would be that the authorities was required to give a due consideration to the issue raised by the petitioner that at that relevant point of time, in the year 2006, when the alleged misconduct had taken place, as per the notification dated 31.10.2003 it was permissible for the petitioner to even register documents pertaining to Rangia area and therefore, the very basis of the allegation would be absent.

7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made the representation dated 11.11.2013 before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Revenue (Registration) and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam. In paragraph 4 of the said representation, a stand has been taken by the petitioner that the bifurcation of Rangia area from the jurisdiction of the authorities in the Kamrup (M) was given effect only as per the notification No. REGN 28/2005/51 dated 12.05.2008 meaning thereby that till such notification was issued, it was permissible for the Sub Registrar at Kamrup (M) even to register documents of Rangia area.

8. The petitioner also took a specific stand that the giving effect to the bifurcation was kept in abeyance as per the earlier notification dated 31.10.2003.

9. In response thereof, the order dated 04.09.2015 had been passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department. In the penultimate paragraph of the said order all that the Secretary provided is that although the charge has been proved against the petitioner in course of the disciplinary proceeding, the representation submitted by the petitioner had been carefully examined and the explanation Page No.# 4/4

put forward does not appear to the Secretary to be convincing and as such, it was unacceptable.

10. We are not concerned with what is the personal view of the Secretary whether it was convincing for him or not. The requirement of this Court was to give a due consideration on the claim of the petitioner that on the date when he had registered two documents of Rangia area, it was permissible under the law in terms of the notification dated 31.10.2003 and 12.05.2008 and hence the charge itself was without any basis. The Secretary had failed to apply his mind on the aforesaid question. Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2015 is set aside and remanded back to the Commissioner and Secretary or the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, as the case may be, to give a fresh consideration to the representation of the petitioner which may have been made pursuant to the order dated 01.11.2013 in WP(C) No. 6190/2013.

11. The requirement be done within a period one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

12. If the reasoned order that may be passed would be in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner be given the consequential retirement benefits by taking note that the punishment imposed upon him earlier would have no effect under the law.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant