Markandey Katju, Krishna Kumar, JJ. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the removal order dated 17.4.1997 Annexure -H to the petition and for a mandamus directing respondents to treat the petitioner in service. We have heard Shri N.C. Rajvanshi learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Ambwani learned counsel for the High Court.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Munsif Magistrate on 31.5.1975 in the U.P. Judicial Service. He was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1983 and as an Additional District Judge in 1987. In para 6 of the petition, it is alleged that his service record was throughout good and no adverse entry was ever communicated to him. In para 7 of the petition it is alleged that even in 1992 he was communicated a good entry. However, he was suspended vide order dated 29.7.1992 copy of which is Annexure -A and given a charge -sheet copy of which is Annexure -C to the petition. A true copy of the petitioner's reply is Annexure -D. The enquiry officer found that the main charges are not proved but he found charge No. 2(ii), 4(iii) and 5 to be proved. True copy of enquiry report is Annexure -E. A chart showing the charges and the findings is Annexure -G to the petition. Thereafter the High Court recommended the removal of petitioner from service and the Governor of U.P. by order dated 17.4.1997 Annexure -H to the petition passed the impugned removal order. Hence this writ petition. We have perused the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit in this case.
(3.) THE impugned order dated 17.4.1997 mentions three grounds for which the petitioner has been removed from service. The first ground is that in a land acquisition case he granted compensation 12 times the amount which he had awarded in an earlier case. In this connection it may be mentioned that each case has its separate facts and hence merely because the petitioner granted higher compensation in a subsequent case this cannot be the basis for attributing motives to him. In paras 58 to 64 of the writ petition it has been alleged that the facts of the two cases were totally different. The earlier decision was given on 6.1.1990 while the latter one was given on 29.5.1992. In para 60 of the petition it has been mentioned that though according to an exemplar the market value of the land was Rs. 200/ - per square yard the petitioner awarded compensation only at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per square yard. In para 61 of the petition it is stated that the value of land had gone up due to development activities near NOIDA where big industries like DCM, Toyota, Escorts Limited etc. have come in and hence there was an escalation in the value of the land. The quantum of the compensation granted by the petitioner was not even challenged by the Ghaziabad Development Authority or the State Government in appeal, rather the claimants have filed an appeal, in the High Court for increase of compensation and award of Rs. 200/ - per square yard instead of Rs. 40/ - per square yard. Hence on this ground the petitioner could not be removed from service.;