- (1.) IT is the duty of the Collector in such cases where he is not the Enquiry Officer himself to go into the evidence and to arrive at a finding after considering each charge separately together with the evidence, oral and documentary, produced in support thereof as well as the evidence produced by the delinquent officer in defence. The failure to perform this important duty vitiates the findings.
(2.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Collector, Alwar, dated 28. 4. 1965, whereby the learned Collector ordered that two grade increments of the appellant Patwari be stopped with cumulative effect on the ground that charges Nos. 1 and 2 stood proved against him (appellant ). From the perusal of the order it appears that the following two charges were framed against the Patwari - (1) That the appellant Patwari while serving as a Patwari of Palawa circle in Tehsil Mundawar, prepared the new girdawari register on the basis of the Jamabandi for the Smt. year 2016. While doing so, in column No. 6 against Khasra No. 148, he entered the name of Umrao. (2) The appellant while serving as a Patwari in the aforesaid circle recorded the girdawari of Kharif 2017 in the name of Udai Ram instead of Umrao who was the actual cultivator. The enquiry was entrusted to the Magistrate First Class, Alwar, who submitted his report on 16. 2. 1965. The learned Collector examined the report and came to the conclusion that the two charges stood established against the appellant. Accordingly, he issued a notice to the Patwari under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Having considered his reply and the Annual Confidential Reports of the Patwari, the learned Collector imposed the penalty as stated above. This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that the order of the Collector is not a speaking order. It does not indicate by what process of reasoning, the learned Collector came to the conclusion that the charges against the patwari stood proved. As has been held down in the case of Jagdish Patwari (RRD 1965 p. 222), where a disciplinary authority does not give reasons for the findings arrived at by him, it cannot be said to have acted in a judicial manner. It is the duty of the Collector in such case where he is not the Enquiry Officer himself to go into the evidence and to arrive at a finding after considering each charge separately together with the evidence, oral and documentary, produced in support thereof as well as the evidence produced by the delinquent officer in defence. The failure to perform this important duty vitiates the findings. This the learned Collector has not done in the present case, and I therefore have no hesitation in accepting this appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The case is remanded to the learned Collector for writing a fresh order in accordance with the law, keeping in view the observation made above after hearing the appellant Patwari. Before parting with the case, I would also like to point out that the charges framed against the Patwari are very serious. The Collector is responsible for the accurate maintenance of the land records. This job is done at the field level by the Patwari who is subject to constant and detailed supervision by the Inspector Land Records, the Tehsildar, the Sub-divisional Officer and the Collector. Inaccuracies in the maintenance of the land records have serious consequences and jeopardise the cause of justice. Tampering with the land records and making of wrong entries should therefore be considered to be a very heinous offence, and if any such charge is proved against a Revenue Officer he should be adequately punished. .;