- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order of punishment passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa dated 2nd June, 2005, whereby, three annual increments with cumulative effect has been stopped for the misconducts, which are proved during the course of departmental inquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-2 is the charge levelled against the present petitioner that on 2nd March, 2003, the petitioner has inserted name of one Sri Sardar Ram in register no. 2 for the land having Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276 ad measuring one acre, though he was not the owner of the property, in question. This is the main allegation against the present petitioner. The allegation was inquired into by the Inquiry Officer and report of the Inquiry Officer is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition and looking to the Inquiry Officer's report, there was a mistake on the part of the present petitioner, as stated by the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 19th April, 2005 at Annexure-3. There was no deliberate action on the part of the petitioner for inserting name of one Sri Sardar Ram in register no. 2 for the land bearing Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276 ad measuring one acre and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa is unreasonably excessive and shockingly disproportionate and, hence, let the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa dated 2nd June, 2005 at Annexure-4 be quashed and set aside and let the matter be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa for his fresh decision upon quantum of punishment.
(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the petitioner is a Revenue Officer and he has inserted name of one Sri Sardar Ram in register no. 2 for the land having Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276 admeasuring one acre. In fact, Sardar Ram was never the owner of the property, in question as on 2nd March, 2003. Looking to the charges at Annexure-2, it appears that the action on the part of the present petitioner, who is a delinquent, is absolutely preplanned and well designed action to give benefits to Sri Sardar Ram, which is evident from charge no. 1, reflected at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the present petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa vide order dated 2nd June, 2005 for stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect is absolutely just and proper and commensurate with the nature of misconduct. It is also submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents that Sardar Ram had never purchased one acre of land of aforesaid Khata and Plot numbers. Sardar Ram had purchased only two decimals of land, whereas, with a view to give benefit to him, the present petitioner has inserted his name for the whole land having Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276. This was not a mistake, at all on the part of the petitioner, as stated in the chargesheet especially charge no. 1. With a view to assist Sardar Ram for getting further benefits, his name was inserted.
(3.) Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner is a Revenue Officer, who was working at Mouza-Salasladi, Nagar Utari, District-Garhwa. It is alleged by the respondents, looking to chargesheet at Annexure-2 that on 2nd March, 2003 for the land bearing Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276, the petitioner has inserted the name of Sardar Ram in register no. 2, though he was not the owner of the property, in question as on that day. (ii) After serving the chargesheet, Inquiry Officer was appointed, inquiry was conducted and the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The inquiry report is dated 19th April, 2005, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition. Looking to this inquiry report, it appears that there is no procedural lapse on the part of the respondents on holding inquiry. Inquiry conducted by the respondents is in accordance with law and adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the present petitioner. (iii) Now, the only question left out is about the punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner. Looking to the nature of misconduct, labelled against the present petitioner, it appears that for inserting name of one Sri Sardar Ram in register no. 2 as owner of the land bearing Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276 cannot be said to be a mistake on his part because said Sri Sardar Ram had never purchased the land ad measuring one acre of the aforesaid Khata and Plot numbers. The Revenue Officer ought to have kept in mind that sale deed was only for two decimals of land, whereas, he has inserted the name of Sardar Ram for the whole land, in question. Thus, there was a positive act on the part of the present petitioner and wrongly, the name of Sardar Ram was inserted in register no. 2. Moreover looking to charge no. 1, which is at Annexure-2, it appears that the petitioner wanted to give benefit to one Sri Sardar Ram and, therefore, his name was inserted for the whole land, though Sardar Ram was not the owner of the whole property. Under the Rural Employment Scheme, Sardar Ram was to get the benefit, if he has the whole land in his name and, therefore, his name was inserted for the land bearing Khata No. 113, Plot No. 276 though he had purchased only two decimals of land. This action on the part of the present petitioner was deliberate action and, therefore, looking to the quantum of punishment, the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, inflicted upon the delinquent by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa vide order dated 2nd June, 2005 at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be said that it is unreasonably excessive punishment. On the contrary, looking to nature of the misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent is absolutely just, proper and adequate punishment. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in his writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;