S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Coun sel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER was an Assistant Regis trar, Kanungo in the Revenue Department of Government of U.P. He was charge-sheeted and suspended on 20.11.1991. Copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit. There were five charges against the petitioner. PETITIONER filed his reply on 26.12.1991, copy of which is Armexure-8 to the writ petition. Inquiry Officer (I.O.) submitted his report on 30.5.1992, copy of which is annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. Appointing Authority sent notice to the petitioner on 28.10.1992 annexing therewith copy of I.O. report and proposing the punishment of dismissal, copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Thereafter, termination order was passed on 18.4.1993, copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Said order was passed by District Magis trate/Collector. Sonebhadra. The said ter mination order has been challenged through this writ petition. The first three charges in the charge sheet related to en tries in the revenue records made by the petitioner in respect of land of other per sons and of Forest Department in the names of his own wife and wives of other colleagues/employees of Revenue Depart ment of same Tehsil/District particularly Krishan Kant Pandey, Assistant Registrar, Kanungo. Tehsildar was appointed as In quiry Officer. First charge was that 70 bighas of Forest land was mutated in the revenue records by the petitioner in the names of his family members and family members of his colleague Krishan Kant Pandey. The explanation of petitioner was that he had received the orders of mutation from Tehsildar on the basis of some judgment of Munsif. In the termination order, it has rightly been stated that no case/suit for mutation under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act can be instituted in the civil Court. The said mutation order, was after wards cancelled by S.D.O. on the ground that order of civil Court was also fictitious and order of Tehsildar was also forged and it was not signed by the Tehsildar. In the reply petitioner did not deny that the order of Munsif was fictitious. He himself admit ted that signatures of Sri Ramnath Bharti, the then Tehsildar on parvana-amal-daramad was not clear. The further allega tion that he sought clarification and there upon Ramnath Bharti clearly wrote that he had signed parvana- amal-daramad and thereafter mention was done by the peti tioner has been found false as Ramnath Bharti, the then Tehsildar categorically de nied his signatures on any such communi cation. Whenever Tehsildar passes an order in mutation proceedings under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, it contains number of the case, names of the parties and complete order. It is inconceivable that Tehsildar will just write to Assistant Regis trar, Kanungo or any other subordinate authority to mutate the name of someone on the land of Forest Department or of any other person. Moreover, as forest land was mutated by the petitioner in the name of his wife hence he should have produced the order of mutation which was not done. Even if there was any such order then it was result of fraud played by the petitioner who never denied that the land which he mutated in the name of his wife was forest land. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had forged 'Will' of two persons Birju and Nanak in favour of his own wife Shiv Kumari and wife of his colleague Knshan Kant Pandey and wives of other employees of Revenue Department. It was also stated that those two per sons were of Scheduled Castes. Reply of the petitioner was that those two persons were issue-less and were residing at his house. It further appears that no regular case for mutation was instituted and ac cording to the own case of the petitioner during 1984 when correction of papers drive was going on, mutation in the names of his wife and wives of other tehsil employees was made. The matter related to 46 bighas land. It is inconceivable that Birju and Nanak should be residing at the resi dence of so many revenue staff members of the same Tehsil and executing will in fa vour of their wives. In any case, the expla nation of petitioner was that Birju and Nanak were residing at his house, hence there was no question of executing the 'will' in favour of wives of other staff members. In the termination order, it has been mentioned that absolutely no information of acquisition of land by the wife of petitioner was given to the higher authori ties. It is also mentioned that no 'Will' was filed even in departmental proceedings.
(3.) IN my opinion, these two charges are so serious that each charge even indi vidually warranted no lesser punishment than of dismissal. IN the reply, those charges were almost admitted. The petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation on 31.7.2008.;