RAMAYAN SINGH PALAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -apatwari of Patwari Circle No. 21, tahsil Lakhanadon, district Seoni, was dismissed from service by the Sub -Divisional Officer on the following charges : - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...

(2.) .The Collector, Seoni, in first appeal, upheld the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer. A second appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, was also rejected. The learned Commissioner considered only the question of punishment and did not question the findings on facts. The reason for this may be stated in his own words: - As this is a second appeal with concurrent findings on facts by both the lower Courts, I cannot reopen those findings (see, 1954 N.L.J. 320). The only question, therefore, that remains for consideration is the question of punishment. With due respect to the authority cited by the learned Commissioner, it may be pointed out that the pronouncement made in, 1954 N. L. J. 320 is limited only to a general proposition derivable from the provisions of section 33 (3) (c) of the Land Revenue Act or section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code referred to in that case. The ruling in question, for instance, did not say that, under no circumstances whatsoever, a finding on facts can be questioned at the stage of second appeal. The learned Judges in that case pointed out that "in a second appeal, where the two Courts below had given a concurrent decision, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to interfere with finding of fact. The Board has, in such a case, to confine itself to the grounds open to it under clause (c) of section 33 (3)". These grounds are, in terms, with the provisions of section 41 (3) (c) of the Land Revenue Code and section 100, Civil Procedure Code, the relevant portion of which is as follows : -

(3.) IN the following paragraphs the finding of the two lower Courts on each charge would be examined to show that they were not at all in accordance with law. I shall begin in reverse order and shall deal with Charge No. 4 first. This charge itself is very vague and does not state exactly what acts of omission and commission on the part of the applicant were referred to. The statement of allegations is equally silent. The statement of the Revenue Inspector recorded by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 1 -2 -56 shows that the applicant was present with the Tahsildar on the spot during the spot inquiry and was in attendance from 23 -10 -55 (10 a. m.) to 24 -10 -55 (6 -30 p. m.). Obviously, a patwari could not take leading part ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...in the inquiry when his senior officers, like Tahsildar and Naib -Tahsildar were themselves investigating into the matter. There is, therefore, no evidence whatsoever to sustain this charge and the decision "of the Courts below is obviously perverse. Charge No. 3 states that the applicant did not comply with the order of the Tahsildar dated 10 -10 -55 inasmuch as in spite of the order of the Tahsildar to make a spot inquiry and to submit a detailed report the applicant did not do so. A reference to the Tahsildar's order on page 31 of the Sub -Divisional Officer's record shows that no instructions of the kind were given to the applicant. On the other hand, the instructions were addressed to and were meant for the Revenue Inspector. The correct position in this respect is further elucidated from the written report of the Tahsildar dated 26 -10 -55 (page 1, S. D. O.'s record). The relevant portion may be reproduced: - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]... (Underlines by me)