Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner against order of penalty dated 15.09.1992, by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect by the disciplinary authority, and order dated 02.09.1994 by which his appeal filed against that order was rejected. Shri C.K. Jain, learned Counsel for petitioner, has argued that departmental enquiry in present case was initiated 13 years after the date of incident and that the enquiry officer so appointed found only charge No. 3 proved against him and that too holding that action of petitioner was of mere negligence. Remaining charges, namely, charge Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not found proved. The District Collector, however, by impugned order dated 15.09.1992, without any notice to petitioner and without serving upon him any note of disagreement, held all the four charges proved and accordingly awarded penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. Learned Counsel submitted that even in charge No. 3 there was no ill -will or oblique motive attributed to petitioner and it was a case of bona -fide error, which occurred on account of fact that the mutation was attested in a special derive held by the administration and he opened mutation of a land stating it to be a Government land (siwai chuck) in favour of Nanda Son of Madho Gurjar, wherein land bearing Khasra No. 710 measuring 17 biswa was stated to have been regularized, whereas the aforesaid land was already entered in revenue record in his name. The enquiry officer found that it was already mutated in his name and therefore he did not find any ill -will or mala -fide on his part to have been proved. However, for remaining three charges, the enquiry officer held them not proved but disciplinary authority i.e. the District Collector in his finding held all the four charged proved against petitioner. It is therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed.
(3.) SHRI Sayed Zakawat Ali, learned Deputy Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents, has opposed writ petition and submitted that disciplinary authority has duly recorded reasons to disagree with findings recorded by enquiry officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. No separate notice was required to be given to petitioner, moreover the petitioner did not object to such recourse to be adopted by respondent even when he filed appeal. The appellate authority has also considered all his arguments in detail and has upheld the order passed by disciplinary authority. There is no infirmity in impugned order. It is therefore prayed that writ petition be dismissed.;