SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under : - "(i) Declaring the orders dated 3.11.1997 (Annex.3) and order dated 25.7.1998 (Annex.6) passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively to be illegal and unconstitutional and the same may be quashed and set aside ; (ii) Directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Patwari, Patwal Mandal, Dhandholi with all consequential benefits; (iii) Passing any other appropriate order or direction which may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of humble petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition." The order dated 3.11.1997 is an order by which the petitioner has been removed from service by way of penalty while the order dated 25.7.1998 is the order passed in appeal.
(2.) The short ground of the petitioner in challenging the orders is that while he was holding the post of Land Revenue Inspector on 26.05.1992 he was suspended along with five other employees. Charge-sheet was served on him on 23.1.1996 wherein it was alleged that in file No. 691/83 dated 18.1.1983, mutation No.290 dated 30.4.1986 had already been sanctioned and executed but the petitioner got another mutation No.15 in regard to Khasra No. 614/1180 measuring 2 hectares whereby a report was entered to the effect that mutation of this Khasra was not implemented/executed and this report was got approved from the higher authorities. Second charge was with regard to earlier period when he was working as Patwari in Village Dhandholi vide mutation No.49 of 26.5.1992, it was alleged that although allotment to a particular Khatedar had been made for only 2.00 hectares (10 bighas of land), the petitioner entered him as Khatedar of 5 hectares of land. The third charge was that while the petitioner posted as Patwari in Mundiya Khurd, the petitioner vide mutation No.56 made an entry in the revenue records that mutation No.290 had not been executed/implemented by Land Records Officers, but in fact while this mutation had been implemented in Account No.284 and in this manner erroneously 30 bighas of land was allotted in favour of the allottee in place of originally 10 bighas of land allotted.
(3.) It is a case of the petitioner that the records were scrutinized by the Land Record Officer and thereafter also by the Tehsildar. However, only the petitioner has been singled out for being discriminated against and no action has been taken against either the then Land Record Inspector Shri Jagannath Prasad or the Tehsildar who signed these documents. It is further a case of the petitioner that the situation had arisen on account of overload work but documents also reflected that there were signatures of Inspector, Land Record with remarks that the entries had already been checked to be correct and with regard to charge No.2, it was submitted that the entries in regard to mutation which form subject matter of this charge were checked and verified to be true by Land Record Inspector Shri Bajrang Lal Joshi, who had been examined as a witness by the prosecution in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner while Bajrang Lal Joshi was left scott free and was further promoted as Office Kanoongo. It is his submission that petitioner has been penalized on the statement of the said Bajrang Lal Joshi and petitioner in his reply has pointed out that the mistakes which had occurred were due to crowded and excessive work and even the other witnesses admitted that there was a rush of work at that time and the fact regarding earlier mutation could not be noticed. It is further case that there was no ill-motive on the part of the petitioner and it was an error occurred on account of mere negligence but was not deliberate.;