SHYAM BEHARI MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2010-2-140
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 23,2010

Shyam Behari Mathur Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Rajasthan And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Shyam Behari Mathur challenging therein order of his penalty dated 03.12.1987 by which three grade increments were withheld without cumulative effect, and order dated 29.12.1990 whereby his appeal filed against the said penalty order was dismissed by Board of Revenue and subsequent order dated 16.11.1995 by which his review petition was dismissed. Shri Ghanshyam Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner, has argued that out of three charges in the charge -sheet served upon him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules') on 07.01.1982, first two charges were found not proved. The third charge was that he while acting as Tehsildar Colonization, Naurangdesar, District Hanumangarh, for the period from 03.06.1975 to 05.01.1977, illegally mutated certain land of Shri Suraj Kumar and Shri Balchand in favour of Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited, Meharwala.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel submitted that this charge proceeded on assumption that mutation was attested in violation of Circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, dated 04.09.1973, whereas petitioner was never served with copy of that Circular nor any such copy was ever endorsed to him. When the petitioner was not made known of that Circular, he could not be blamed for violating the departmental instructions of not attesting the mutation of the land falling within the Bikaner State unless the Khatedars concerned had submitted the declaration required by Section 15 -A(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Learned Counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue in an identical matter where mutation of land belonging to Scheduled Caste was attested in favour of non -Scheduled Caste person, held that the order passed by Tehsildar was subject to challenge before appellate forum but this being the quasi -judicial functions exercised by him he could not be proceeded against in the disciplinary proceedings under the CCA Rules.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.