M.KATJU, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31 -1 -1996 Annexure 14 to the writ petition by which the petitioner after an enquiry has been reverted from the post of Assistant Inspector General (Registration) to the post of Registrar. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is a class II officer in the employment of the State Government. He joined the service as Sub -Registrar from 13 -2 -1970 on probation and he was confirmed on 13 -2 -1972. He was promoted as Assistant Inspector General (Registration) on 3 -8 -1991 and was posted at Bulandshahr. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the respondents 3 and 4 had some grudge against the petitioner and hence a preliminary enquiry was conducted in connection with the letter dated 16 -3 -1994 written by the Inspector General (Registration) to the petitioner vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. By this letter the petitioner was asked to explain why the record of the order dated 18 -10 -1992 was not sent to the A.D.M. (Finance) and the details about the document No. 1608/93. Thereafter by letter dated 4 -6 -1994 Annexure 2 to the writ petition the petitioner was informed that an enquiry was being instituted against the petitioner on various charges and the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24 -5 -1994 Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner was also served a charge -sheet vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said charge -sheet shows that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner has grossly undervalued certain property at Rs. 5,42,633 although the A.D.M. (Finance) reported that the value of the property was about Rs. 15 lacs. The allegation was that the petitioner had not considered the evidence of the witnesses under Rules 347, 348 and 349 of the Stamp Rules and merely relied on the ex parte version of the witnesses and thus there was huge loss to the revenue. It was alleged that this was done deliberately by the petitioner for gaining some benefit.
(3.) SIMILARLY charge No. 2 was regarding some other orders passed by the petitioner in which he has grossly undervalued the valuable property. The petitioner had valued the properties for a total of Rs. 4,23,000 while their value would be over Rs. 39 lacs. The other allegations are also similar and relate to gross under valuation.;