Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court, impugning the order dated 06.04.2011 (Annexure P -11) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat -respondent No. 3, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect; order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure P -12) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the order dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P -13) passed by the Financial Commissioner & Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Haryana -respondent No. 1, rejecting the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner against the order imposing abovesaid punishment upon him. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, were non -issuance of summons in an execution application filed by Satnarayan Sharma, complainant. During the departmental enquiry held by the respondents against the petitioner, Sh. Jagbir Singh, Reader, Naib Tehsildar, Madlauda, who had produced the record, had admitted that no application was filed by the complainant for execution. He contends that in absence of any application for execution, there was no question of issuing summons to the other party whereas it has also come on record that mutation was sanctioned upon an application submitted by the complainant during a Khula Darbar held by the Deputy Commissioner/Naib Tehsildar. He, therefore, contends that the enquiry report, which is based on no evidence against the petitioner, cannot sustain and consequently the impugned orders deserve to be set -aside.
(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that on the basis of evidence led by the Department, charges were duly proved against the petitioner and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to hold him guilty, on the basis of which the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect on the ground that he had not issued the summons in an execution application for sanction of mutation. He contends that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record and, therefore, no interference by this Court is called for and the impugned orders, being passed on the basis of enquiry report, which has been accepted by the Punishing Authority as also the appellate and revisional authority, no interference by this Court would be called for. He, therefore, contends that the writ petition deserves to be set -aside. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
(3.) IN the present case, the most relevant evidence for the purpose of determining the charge against the petitioner, which was relating to negligence in issuance of summons in an execution application would be of Sh. Jagbir Singh, Reader, Naib Tehsildar, Madlauda, who had produced the office record. The same reads as follows, as has been mentioned in the enquiry report dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P -6): - Sh. Jagbir Singh, Reader, Naib Tehsildar Madlauda stated in his statement that according to record of their office case No. 75 Satnarayan etc. Versus Sh. Satbir Singh etc. case of mutation is deposited in record room of their office. It has also been told that execution shown in allegation letter of complainant Sh. Satnarayan is not registered in court of Sub Tehsil Madlauda. He also showed a photo copy of letter vide serial No. 262/N.T. Dated 20.2.09 issued by Deputy Tehsildar, Madlauda, in it was shown that present Deputy Tehsildar Sh. Raja Ram discussed the relevant case on phone and was told by them that complainant have given on application for execution in Khula Darbar, on which mutation was sanctioned, applicant has not filed any case for execution.;