BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed on behalf of Bhupinder Singh Vohra, Tehsildar, against the State of Haryana. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Shri B. S. Grewal and the Commissioner, ambala Division, are impleaded as respondents 2 and 3. The State of Punjab was allowed to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 under order of Sarkaria J. , dated the 16th October, 1967.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has made two prayers. He has firstly asked for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of his suspension dated 14th of August, 1967, pending departmental enquiry against him (An-nexure V ). He has further prayed that a writ of mandamus should issue to the State of Har-vana to withdraw all the enquiries pending against him from respondent No. 2 and entrust the same to some other suitable officer of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 2 was maliciously disposed towards him.

(3.) THE facts ot this case are, that while the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar in roh-tak in 1961, he received a D. O. letter No. 8494-E (II)-60/645, dated the 10th february, 1961 (Annexure A), from the Revenue Secretary to the Financial commissioner to the; effect that the confidential report on the petitioner's work and conduct during the year 1959-60 while he was Tehsildar at Ambala showed that he had committed irregularities in the allotment of land in village Sarasgarh, and that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) trusted that he would remedy the defects which had been brought to his notice. The petitioner said that it appeared to him that the Financial Commissioner Revenue had made some wrong entries in his personal record as he never worked as Tehsildar at Ambala. The petitioner brought this position to the notice of the Financial Commissioner on 7th of April, 1961 that he had never been posted at Ambala throughout the period of his service nor had he done any allotment work, vide Anuexure B. The petitioner received a reply from the Revenue Secretary to the Financial Commissioner on 2110-1961 that the matter was under consideration. The petitioner then said thai this matter remained pending with respondent No. 2 by over Four tears and he believed that the case must have been placed several times before respondent No. 2 for ex-punction of adverse remarks againsl him, "unfounded and unjustified as they were, but the said respondent was presumably adamant and considered it below his dignity to admit his mistake and to withdraw those remarks. " in the year 1965, the petitioner was inform ed that it had been decided to expunge the adverse remarks represented against vide Annex-lire D. But on 22-6 1965. the petitioner received another communication (Annexure E) stating that on enquiry, it had been found that the petitionei helped his father in-law Shri Sunder singh in wrongfully obtaining evacuee properties in village Sarasgarh. and that the Financial Commissionei trusted that the petitioner would remedy the defects which had been brought to his notice, In the last para, it was stated that the adverse remarks already conveyed cm 10th of February. 1961 should be treated as cancelled. The petitioner has said that respondent No 2 was 'bent upon spoiling the record of the petitioner on one pretext or the other". Tha petitioner submitted his explanation on 30th of Sept. , 1965 (Annexure F) stating that the agricultural land was rightly allotted to his father-in-law along with the residential house and that the petitioner had no hand in the allotment of that property. In the petition, it was then stated that the petitioner's representation should have been accepted, "yet respondent No. 2 out of sheer vindictiveness rejected the petitioner's representation" as per Annexure G. Before proceeding to further allegations, the stand taken by the respondents on this item may be noticed.