Anjani Kumar, Sabhajeet Yadav - (1.) BY this petition the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of punishment dated 17th January, 2006 (Annexure-1) as well as inquiry report dated 14th September, 2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Vide impugned order dated 17th January, 2006 passed by State Government a major penalty of reduction in rank, i.e., from substantive rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been inflicted upon the petitioner. A further relief in the nature of mandamus has been sought for commanding the respondents not to take any further action either in furtherance of or as a consequence of the impugned order and to grant and restore all benefits for which the petitioner was entitled but for the impugned punishment awarded to him vide Order dated 17th January, 2006.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] in the year 1980. THEreafter he was promoted on the next higher post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively in the year 1990. He was further promoted to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the year 2000, under Rule 22 (3) of U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as '1975 Rules'). On all these posts the petitioner worked with utmost devotion, sincerity, integrity and in accordance with well established judicial norms. And to the best of his knowledge, during the entire period of about 26 years of his service, the work and conduct of the petitioner has been unblemished. No complaint, whatsoever, was ever brought to the notice of the petitioner. THE petitioner understands and believes that the Hon'ble High Court granted to the petitioner promotion to the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively and to the post of Additional District Judge in the cadre of U. P. Higher Judicial Service under Rule 22 (3) of the 1975 Rules after careful, appropriate and effective evaluation of the merit of his work and conduct including efficiency, honesty and integrity reflected on its record. All of a sudden, without any material the petitioner has been presumed to be dishonest in performing his judicial duties on extraneous consideration or anxiety to unduly favour a party and thereby guilty of misconduct and a charge sheet dated 25.10.2004 was served upon the petitioner on 16.11.2004 vide letter dated 28.10.2004 through District Judge, Pilibhit where the petitioner was working as Additional District Judge. A true copy of the communication dated 28.10.2004 alongwith charge-sheet dated 25.10.2004 is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. By this charge memo an allegation was levelled against the petitioner that on 16.1.2001 while working as IVth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, he had decided a reference case without proper reference and thereby unduly favoured the claimant in the said decision, against all judicial norms and propriety for extraneous consideration, thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U. P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 1956 Rules) and the petitioner was asked to file written reply within ?tipulated time. In response to the said charge-sheet the petitioner has submitted his written reply on 20.1.2005 through proper channel, a true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Before the Hon'ble Enquiry Judges also the petitioner has submitted a written submission dated 3.9.2005. A true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. THEreafter Hon'ble Enquiry Judges have held inquiry against the petitioner and submitted their inquiry report dated 14.9.2005 holding the petitioner guilty of charge levelled in the charge-sheet. A true copy of inquiry report is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. THEreupon the Registrar (Confidential) High Court, Allahabad vide letter dated 21.9.2005 has invited the comments of the petitioner against the findings of Hon'ble Enquiry Judges, in response to which the petitioner has submitted his comments dated 22.10.2005 through proper channel, a true copy whereof is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. THE said inquiry report was approved in Full Court meeting of this Court and the penalty of reduction in rank was recommended thereby to the State Government. THEreupon while acting upon the said recommendation the State Government has passed the impugned order reducing the petitioner in rank from his substantive post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), hence this petition. It is further stated that a dispute giving rise cause of action of aforesaid disciplinary inquiry was that a land bearing Khasra No. 437 ad-measuring an area about 3 Bighas 4 Biswa situated in village Dasna under Govind Puram Scheme, Ghaziabad belonging to Wing Commander P.D. Bali was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. It is stated in the writ petition that besides earth, on the land acquired, 7500 trees of Eucalyptus were standing thereon ; there existed construction of two rooms, two hand pumps, one room housing boring of 5" diameter and a boundary wall on the four sides of the land. There were also tree of Guava, Mango, Neem, Adoo. There was also a Samadhi on the land. After usual formalities were gone through, the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation vide, allegedly ex parte, award dated 7.12.1990 confined only in respect of the earth, at the rate of Rs. 71.43 per square yard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did not determine the compensation in respect of the trees and superstructure standing on the earth, although he was legally required to do so in view of the fact that the expression 'land' includes earth as well as benefits arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fasten to anything attached to the earth vide Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act ; and that in view of the fact that Section 11 (1) of the Act requires that the award must include, inter alia, the compensation which ought to be allowed for the land as defined in Section 3 (a) of the Act. The award dated 7.12.1990 did not comply fully the requirements of Section 11 of the Act, and was, obviously, incomplete. The compensation of the earth of the land determined by the award dated 7.12.1990 was neither paid to nor accepted by Wing Commander P. D. Bali till the year 1997. In the meantime, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22274 of 1993, Wing Commander P. D. Bali v. State of U. P. and others, before this Court, initially challenging the acquisition proceedings, later on, by amendment application, he also prayed for restoration of the land under proviso to Section 17 (1) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It was also stated that P.D. Bali had also applied to the State Government for restoration of the land vide his application dated 17th April, 1994 but the State Government had not decided the same. This Court, without going into the merits of the claim of Wing Commander P. D. Bali, disposed of the writ petition finally, vide Order dated 15th May, 1996 with the direction to the State ?overnment to dispose of the application of Wing Commander P. D. Bali dated 17th April, 1994 within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, by a speaking order after hearing Wing Commander P. D. Bali as well as Ghaziabad Development Authority. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 15th May, 1996 the State Government considered the application of Wing Commander P. D. Bali dated 17th April, 1994 and disposed of vide order dated 20th July, 1996 holding that it is true that uptil now compensation has been awarded only in respect of land (earth) but thereafter award in respect of trees and superstructure standing on the land on the basis of development of land shall surely be made. A true copy of the order of State Government dated 20th July, 1996 is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Thereafter on the strength of the observation of the State Government, the exercise of determination of the compensation in respect of trees and construction etc. standing on the acquired land was undertaken by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) Ghaziabad and the exercise was culminated into supplementary award dated 10.8.1997 (wrongly mentioned in the charge sheet served on the petitioner as dated 30.8.1997). It is submitted that the award dated 7.12.1990 came to be completed on 10.8.1997 when the supplementary award was given and the requirement of Section 11 of the Act stood fully satisfied. It is further submitted that the award dated 7.12.1990 would be deemed to be incomplete till the delivery of supplementary award dated 10.8.1997.
(3.) IT is further stated in the writ petition that Wing Commander P. D. Bali did not accept the offer of compensation made to him through the awards dated 7.12.1990 and 10.8.1997 as he was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered to him and on 8.9.1997 the Wing Commander P. D. Bali submitted an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Addl. Collector (L.A.) (Irrigation) Ghaziabad for making reference before the Court for determination of compensation of land as well as trees and superstructure standing on the land. IT is pointed out that Wing Commander P. D. Bali had never applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of the determination of compensation offered to him through award dated 7.12.1990 which fact is admitted on record by the Additional Collector in his referral order passed under Section 19 of the Act as well as by E.W. '1', Sri Rajendra Kumar Tyagi, Legal Assistant of the Ghaziabad Development Authority before the Hon'ble Enquiry Judges, presumably, he waited for finality of award which was accomplished on the delivery of the supplementary award dated 10.8.1997. The claim of Wing Commander P. D. Bali under Section 18 of the Act, for determination by the Court, was referred to by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), Ghaziabad. A true copy of the referral order is on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Vide his judgment and order dated 16.1.2001, the petitioner decided the reference. He decided the objections of Wing Commander P. D. Bali on the basis of oral evidence produced by the parties and the documentary evidence in the shape of examplers produced by Wing Commander P. D. Bali alone. No documentary evidence was produced either on behalf of the State Government or on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad leaving the documentary evidence produced by Wing Commander P. D. Bali unrebutted. The fact that no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of State Government or Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad has also been admitted by E.W. '1' Sri Rajendra Kumar Tyagi before the Hon'ble Enquiry Judges. However, while deciding the reference, the petitioner kept in mind the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 as well as other relevant provisions of the Act and the guidance given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Privy Council and the Hon'b?e High Courts. The petitioner observed all judicial norms and propriety and decided the objection of the claimant Wing Commander P. D. Bali without any other consideration much less any extraneous consideration as inferred and presumed in the enquiry report dated 14th September, 2005 without any basis. In the date events chart filed in the writ petition, it is shown that claimant has filed First Appeal No. 365 of 2001 Wing Commander P. D. Bali v. State of U. P. and others against the decision rendered by the petitioner in L.A.R. No. 624 of 1997 and Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad has also filed First Appeal No. 466 of 2002 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Wing Commander P. D. Bali against the same decision before this Court. On the basis of assertions made in the pleadings of the writ petition, learned senior counsel Sri Shashi Nandan, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Munsif (Civil Judge {Junior Division}) in the year 1980. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively in the year 1990. He was further promoted to the Cadre of U. P. Higher Judicial Service and appointed as Additional District Judge in the year 2000 under Rule 22 (3) of 1975 Rules. On all these posts the petitioner worked with utmost devotion, sincerity, integrity and in accordance with the well established judicial norms. And, to the best of his knowledge, during the entire period of about 26 years of his service the work and conduct of the petitioner has been unblemished. No complaint, whatsoever, was ever brought to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner understands and believes that the Hon'ble High Court granted to the petitioner promotion to the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) substantively and to the post of the Additional District Judge in the cadre of U. P. Higher Judicial Service under Rule 22 (3) of 1975 Rules after careful, appropriate and effective evaluation of the merit of his work and conduct, including efficiency, honesty and integrity reflected on its record. All of a sudden and without any material the petitioner has been presumed to be dishonest in performing his judicial duties on extraneous consideration or anxiety to unduly favour a party and thereby guilty of misconduct. To the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, there is no statable data to buttress the presumption or inference of his dishonesty or performance of judicial duties for extraneous consideration or anxiety to unduly favouring a party leading to the guilt of alleged misconduct. Indeed, there is utter dearth of evidence in this regard. There being absolutely no evidence on record or otherwise giving rise to the presumption or inference of dishonesty or performance of judicial duties for extraneous consideration or anxiety to unduly favouring a party indicating alleged misconduct, the inferential finding holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct is totally arbitrary and perverse. The Hon'ble Enquiry Judges have also not specifically concluded in enquiry report regarding misconduct of petitioner. Thus, charge levelled against the petitioner remains unproved.;