B.P.Paroha vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 20863 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

B.P.Paroha vs The State Of M.P. on 11 December, 2023

                                                              1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                              ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 22675 of 2003

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BHAGWAT PRASAD PAROHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                           S/O SHRI DULICHAND PAROHA, OCCUPATION SERVICE
                           PATWARI, R/O CHAKA TEHSIL KATNI, DISTRICT
                           KATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR -
                           SMT. SUSHILA PAROHA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O
                           CHAKA, TEHSIL-KATNI, DISTRRICT KATNI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI K.K. PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVT.
                           OF M.P. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN,
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                           2. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), JABALPUR, DIVISION
                           JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                           3.   COLLECTOR JABALPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)
                           4.   SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KATNI,
                           DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI ANAND SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By the present petition, the original petitioner Bhagwat Prasad Paroha is challenging the order of dismissal from the post of Patwari passed on 24.1.1992 by S.D.O. Katni as well as the order passed in Appeal on 27.6.1994 by

Additional Collector, Katni whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The short facts of the case are that, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein seven charges were leveled against the petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner remained absent at the time of Chalit Nayalaya inspite of intimation. The second charge was that the petitioner without any permission used to leave the Head Quarters and stayed at his residence, which was situated in Gram Chaka. The third allegation was that the petitioner prepared Bhu Adhikar and Rinpustika in respect of land bearing Khasra No.783 of Teshil Katni in favour of Krishna Choudhary whereas the same recorded in

the revenue record in the name of Kunjilal and others and Krishna Choudhary was not the owner of the land. The fourth charge was in respect of helping to the encroachers those have encroached upon the government land and tried to prepare a forged and bogus records of the ownership. The fifth charge was that the petitioner helped Ganesh Prasad and others in allotment of government land. The sixth charge was when the complaint was lodged before the S.D.O. Katni on 10.5.1988, the petitioner threatened the complainant with a dire consequences for not deposing against the petitioner and seventh charge was that when the S.D.O. Katni ordered him to appear on 30.7.1989 and file the reply of the complaint, he remained absent. After issuance of the charge-sheet the Settlement Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report to S.D.O. Katni and found six charges proved. S.D.O. Katni after serving the same to the petitioner, passed the order of punishment and dismissed the services of the petitioner by order dated 24.1.1992. The petitioner preferred the appeal against the said order before the Additional Collector, Katni, which was also dismissed on 27.6.1994

and thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. In the aforesaid factual background, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges leveled against the petitioner were incorrect and the petitioner was in fact not posted in the relevant Patwari Halka at the time when the charge No.3,4 and 5 alleged the preparation of forged Rinpustika and revenue record by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that after initiation of the enquiry, application was moved on 11.4.1989 before the Inquiry Officer for supply of documents, copies of statement of witnesses for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to submit his defense but the same was never supplied and without supply of the same, the enquiry was conducted. This point was raised by the petitioner in the appeal also but the same was not appreciated in the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the coordinate bench in W.P. No.21670/2013 decided on 18.11.2014 in the matter of Dr.Yogiraj Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others reported in (2015) 1 M.P.L.J. 452, wherein the order of dismissal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority due to failure to supply the necessary documents on the basis of which the allegations were leveled against the delinquent. It was held that the supply of documents and necessary report etc. is essential otherwise the whole proceedings vitiates. He further relied upon

the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P. No.9186/2006 decided on 11.2.2021 in the matter of Ram Karan Dwivedi vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in (2021) 3 M.P.L.J. 473, wherein the delinquent demanded the document which were not supply to him on the ground that the demand was raised to delay the inquiry and therefore, the same was treated as denial of fair

opportunity and the inquiry report was quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Inquiry Officer has not permitted the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and the copies of the statement of the witnesses have also not been supplied to the petitioner. In this contest, when the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was examined, nowhere it appears that the witnesses were cross examined by the delinquent and the opportunity of cross examination was not granted to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the aforesaid order.

7. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has supported the order of dismissal and argued that proper procedure has been followed. The charge-sheet was duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the inquiry and submitted his reply. The inquiry report was issued after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner himself has issued the Bhu Adhikar and Rinpustika to the various persons those were not land owners and in the facts and circumstances of the case, ample evidence was available against the petitioner. Therefore, the enquiry report is based on due appreciation of evidence and the disciplinary authority has rightly dismissed the services of the petitioner, after affording proper opportunity and in this petition there is no scope for interference. He prays for dismissal of the petition.

8. Heard the parties and perused the record.

9. It reflects from the record that the petitioner submitted an application before the Inquiry Officer and demanded the copies of the statement of witnesses and other relevant documents. However, on the same day the petitioner has filed reply to the charge-sheet but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not demonstrate from the record that the relevant documents were duly supplied to the petitioner and it is settled proposition of

law that if the copies of the documents were not supplied to the petitioner the same cannot be basis of action against the petitioner. It also appears from the copy of appeal memo that even in the appeal, the petitioner raised this point that he was not provided the copy of documents on the basis of which the charge sheet was supplied and the petitioner was unable to defend the allegations in the absence of documents. At the same time, the petitioner also raised the issue that he was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses.

10. It is established on record that the petitioner was not provided the documents on the basis of which the charges were leveled against the petitioner and the petitioner was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses. Therefore, there is no need to discuss the merit of the case and these grounds are sufficient to set aside the inquiry report and consequential order of dismissal and the same are hereby set aside. The inquiry report, order of dismissal passed by the S.D.O. Katni and order passed by the Additional Collector, Katni in appeal are hereby set aside.

11. In the above circumstances, it is just and proper to provide an opportunity to the department to conduct the enquiry afresh, after providing the documents and following the principle of natural justice as well as M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966, but during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has died and his widow has brought on record, therefore, no useful purpose will serve in remanding the matter as the enquiry cannot be held afresh.

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it proper to issue the directions that the widow of the petitioner will be entitled for family pension only and same be fixed and be paid to her month by month, from today. No other benefits will be

extended to the widow of the petitioner as the enquiry report was set aside on the ground of failure to provide the documents and opportunity of cross examination, but the same could not be remanded back due to the death of the original petitioner. Hence, the complete benefit cannot be extended to the widow as the delinquent was not absolved from the allegations and the allegations were serious in nature.

13. With the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE irf.