Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) This petition impugns the order dated 11 February 2014 pursuant to which the petitioner has been subjected to a major penalty and stands reverted to the post of Survey Lekhpal in the basic scale of pay. The order of reversion passed upon culmination of disciplinary proceedings has been affirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate in terms of his order dated 16 January 2015 as well as in revision in terms of the order passed by the State on 02 February 2018. The skeletal facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows.
(3.) A private complaint appears to have been made against the petitioner in respect of certain entries made in the relevant revenue record. On the basis of that complaint, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and he was also placed under suspension. The order of suspension passed on 09 February 2007 was challenged in a writ petition before this Court which came to be allowed by a learned Judge on 16 August 2007. The principal ground of challenge which appears to have been addressed in that petition was with respect to the authority of the Assistant Records Officer to place the petitioner under suspension even though he had not been notified as such under the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. The submission on behalf of the petitioner appears to have been that since the Assistant Records Officer had not been notified as the Records Officer of the area as contemplated under Section 49 of the 1901 Act, he was not entitled to either draw disciplinary proceedings or place the petitioner under suspension. This submission appears to have been conceded to by the State as a consequence of which the writ petition was allowed and the order of suspension quashed. Upon issue of the charge sheet an enquiry officer was admittedly appointed and the Naib Tehsildar who was appointed as such submitted a report on 20 June 2010 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The matter appears to have rested there since in the meanwhile the State had failed to notify an Assistant Records Officer who may have continued the proceedings drawn against the petitioner. On 31 December 2013 the State proceeded to notify the Assistant Records Officer who thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 11 February 2014. Although the impugned orders have been challenged on various grounds in the writ petition, learned counsel has restricted his challenge to the following ground alone. The order passed by the Assistant Records Officer is challenged principally and fundamentally on the anvil of the law as declared by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84 . The submission which is addressed by Sri Awasthi is that before disagreeing with the findings returned by the enquiry officer on the individual articles of charge, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing or to represent against the proposed action.The plea so taken stands reflected in the averments made in paragraph 33 of the writ petition.;