Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manjeet Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 4 September, 2024
(OA No.2141/2016)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2141/2016
Reserved on :30.08.2024
Pronounced on :04.09.2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Manjeet Singh
S/o Sh.Balraj Singh
R/o 76, VPO Nangli Poona,
Delhi-110036.
Aged about 47 years
Presently, adhoc -DANIPS; GNCT of Delhi) ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra with Mr.Syed Anis Nizami
and Mr. Akshyay Singh)
Vs
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Rajpur Road,
New Delhi.
3. Director,
Directorate of Vigilance,
GNCT of Delhi
4th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Sachivalaya,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
4. Deputy Commissioner (South-West)
GNCT of Delhi
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera, New Delhi-37. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Ms.Sumedha Sharma)
(OA No.2141/2016)
(2)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned actions/orders dated 22/10/2014 (the chargesheet) along with the two orders-
both dated 31/05/2016 placed at Annexure A/2 and A/3 respectively - (the orders appointing the IO & PO).
b) Accord all consequential benefits.
c) Award costs of the proceedings; and
d) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as indicated in the OA are that the applicant was appointed as Gr.II/DASS on 01.06.1993. By dint of his hard work, honesty and efficiency, he has earned two promotions and he is an ad- hoc DANICS officer. The applicant is presently posted as Deputy Secretary (Legislative Assembly Secretariat, GNCT of Delhi).
3. It is submitted that vide memorandum dated 22.10.2014 a charge sheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 by Respondent No 3 (OA No.2141/2016) (3) in the name of Respondent No 2 when he was holding office as Tehsildar (Najafgarh). The applicant was directed to submit his reply/written statement of his defence and also whether he desires to be heard in person. The applicant was further informed that the enquiry would be held in respect of only those articles of charges, as are not admitted by him and, therefore, he should specifically admit or deny the article of charges. Since the listed documents were not supplied to the applicant, he submitted an application for supply of the said documents so as to enable him to submit a proper and effective reply. Vide memorandum dated 17.07.2015, the respondents furnished the listed documents to the applicant requiring him to file his reply to the chargesheet. The applicant thereafter submitted his detailed reply dated 29.07.2015 to the authorities on 30.07.2015.
4. It is further submitted that the respondents have ordered appointment of Inquiry Officer IO) and Presenting Officer (PO) respectively without considering the various factual as well as legal pleas/submissions made by the applicant vide his reply. It is averred that in terms of Rule 14 (5) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 read with Government of India OM dated 12.03.1981 & 08.12.1982, it was (OA No.2141/2016) (4) incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to consider the written statement of defence and then take a reasoned decision, either to drop or to proceed with the enquiry proceedings. However, without consideration of the reply, the IO and PO have been appointed vide impugned orders dated 31.05.2016 and in furtherance thereto, the applicant had been called for 16.06.2016 by the IO vide notice dated 02.06.2016, for purposes of participation into the illegal enquiry being conducted against the applicant. The applicant appeared on 16.06.2016 and the IO has called him again on 30.06.2016. In the above background, it is submitted that the allegations contained in the chargesheet are to the effect that the applicant has been charged with misconduct for sanctioning fraudulent mutation of two pieces of agricultural land on 05.03.2009, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Sherpur Dairy, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi without summoning the original bhoomidar/recorded land owner, in violation of provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 and also without verifying the possession of land(s) in question. The aforesaid allegations relate to the period when the applicant was posted as 'Tehsildar' (Najafgarh), Office of Deputy Commissioner (South-West), Kapashera, New Delhi.
(OA No.2141/2016) (5)
5. In the aforesaid context, it is submitted that 'Tehsildar' functions as a judicial authority under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'. Revenue Court as defined in section 3(6) of the Act includes 'Tehsildar'. A 'Tehsildar can hold his 'Court at any place within the Tehsil. As per Section 64 (Annexure A/10), the orders passed by the 'Tehsildar' are appealable. 'The Delhi Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules') are rules framed under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 for purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. A 'Tehsildar' is appointed under Rule 355 of The Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962. The duties and functions of the 'Tehsildar' are defined under Rule 356 read with Rule 358. As per the provisions of Rule 415 of the Rules, the Proceedings, Orders, Appeals, Revisions and References in the mutation cases shall be deemed judicial for the purposes of the Act. Mutation in itself, is an act of determining the revenue payer. It is, thus, submitted that a 'Tehsildar' while deciding mutation cases functions as a judicial authority under the statute. Once a judicial authority discharges his official duties in good faith and there are no specific allegations of any corrupt or ulterior motives, he cannot be proceeded with departmentally and his acts, (OA No.2141/2016) (6) actions and conduct do not constitute misconduct unless, of course, there are corrupt motives attributed for the said conduct. In the present case, it is relevant to note that there are no allegations of recklessness, corrupt or specific/ulterior motives against the applicant. Hence, the impugned charge sheet is bad in law.
6. The applicant submits that even otherwise, mere negligence or omission in discharge of official duties does not constitute misconduct, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. J. Ahmed, 1979 (2) SCC 236. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the applicant submits that there is no provision of summoning the original bhoomidar/recorded land owner, in the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962. Once there is no provision in the Rules, violation thereof cannot be alleged. The aforesaid submissions were made by the applicant in his reply/submissions of defence submitted to the Disciplinary Authority which has not been considered. Besides the above, the applicant had submitted that the mutation of the above land was on the basis of registered sale deeds of the year 2009. The said mutation was sanctioned as per the provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Rules and specifically (OA No.2141/2016) (7) following the procedure provided in Sections 22 & 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 read with Rules 139 to 146 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962.
7. The applicant contends that upon receiving the application seeking mutation, a 'Tehsildar', is required to order for issuance of proclamation under Rule 144 (Annexure A/14) and thereafter he is required to proceed under Section 23 whereby he is required to make such enquiry as appears necessary and pass orders in case of undisputed mutation, whereas in case of disputed mutation, he is required to refer the matter to the Revenue Assistant. The application dated 13.02.2009 for mutation was received in the office of applicant on 16.02.2009 and thereafter following the law/rules, the applicant issued a valid proclamation on 18.02.2009 as per Rule 144 of the aforesaid rules. The applicant had ordered not only the proclamation but the notices were issued to the parties as well and posted the matter for further proceedings on 05.03.2009 vide order dated 18.02.2009. The proclamation and the notices issued clearly mentioned therein the next date of hearing and that any person having any type of objection regarding the said mutation may appear and submit the same in person or (OA No.2141/2016) (8) through Advocate. As per the report of the Patwari', the proclamation was duly made/pasted in the circle village. 'Ujwa' as the concerned village Sherpur Dairy was reported to be a village without population (also popularly termed as 'Be-Chiragh Mauja') and that the individual's notice was duly served and received by the respective Special Power of Attorney holder(s) of the seller duly registered in the office of SR-IX, Delhi. On 05.03.2009, when the matter was taken up, the mutation report(s) in form P-I were submitted by the 'Patwari'. The Registered SPA holder(s) of the seller Sh. Bhartu appeared for the seller and purchasers appeared in person along with witnesses/identifiers and no objections were received from any corner against sanctioning of mutation, thus, the mutation proceedings remained undisputed and in case of undisputed mutation Section 23 requires the sanction of the mutation. Furthermore, there were registered sale deed(s) before the applicant on the basis of which the mutations were sought by the parties. Perusal of the sale deeds revealed that the photographs of the seller on the sale deed was attested by none other than the SHO, Najafgarh, having jurisdiction over the area where the property(s) sold was situated; the persons appearing for the seller having respective registered Special Power of (OA No.2141/2016) (9) Attorney in their favour; the necessary identity proofs of the parties were obtained, the statement of the witnesses identifying the parties were obtained, and the report of the patwari on form P-1 under Rule 21 was perused and thereafter only, finding the report of Patwari on respective P-I correct, the order of mutation was passed. The transfer of land was based on registered sale deeds.
8. In such circumstances, the applicant could not have refused or withheld the sanctioning of mutation as the parties were before him and were seeking mutation on the basis of documents duly registered under the law. The applicant was neither required to go into the genuineness of the sale nor required to personally summon or visit the said seller or the Sub-Registrar for any further enquiry. The applicant acted in good faith and discharged his official/judicial duty with utmost sincerity and devotion as per the settled procedure and norms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no reason to refuse or withhold the sanctioning of mutations, as the parties were before him and were seeking mutation on the basis of documents duly registered under the law. The applicant claims that in view of aforesaid, he was neither required to (OA No.2141/2016) (10) go into the genuineness of the sale nor required to personally summon or visit the said seller or the Sub- Registrar for any further enquiry. The applicant acted in good faith and discharged his official judicial duty with utmost sincerity and devotion as per the settled procedure and norms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, had he refused or withheld the mutation orders, he would have been guilty of dereliction of duty and motives could also have been attributed to him.
9. The applicant further submits that the allegations regarding non-verification of the delivery of possession is baseless and unsubstantiated. The listed documents i.e. the sale deeds, contain recital(s) to the effect that the actual physical vacant possession of the said land has been delivered by the vendor to the vendee, on the spot. Application seeking mutation categorically mentions that the actual physical vacant possession has been taken over by the applicant, the statement of the SPA holders of the seller was taken on oath wherein they stated that the entire consideration amount has been received and the possession of the land has been delivered to the purchaser on the spot, the statement of the purchasers were also taken on record (OA No.2141/2016) (11) wherein they admitted to have taken the actual possession on the spot. No further enquiry regarding actual delivery of possession was required under the law, rules or the settled procedure. The applicant reiterates that he was not required to verify the transfer of possession by visiting the spot or in any other way.
10. He also contends that the rights of the parties do not get affected by mutation orders as mutation is only an acknowledgement of existing rights, in the revenue record. The rights of the parties get crystallized and affected by sale deed and not by mutation. In the instant case, the sale deeds already stood registered on 09.02.2009. He further submits that the fraud came to his notice only when original owner approached him stating that the land actually belonged to him and that it has been sold off by fraudulent sale deeds by mischievous elements (by way of a registered sale deeds of the year 2009). The applicant immediately conducted local enquiry at personal level and after following the due process of law cancelled the mutations vide orders dated 25.03.2009 and intimated his senior officers about the whole episode of fraud played by someone upon his court vide written communication dated 31.03.2009. It is learnt (OA No.2141/2016) (12) that this information submitted by the applicant of the fraud committed in his Court has become the cause of enquiry against him. The applicant further submits that neither order issued by the applicant was challenged by anyone nor anyone has complained about the applicant. The applicant further submits that the observations that he passed the mutation orders exactly 15 days, which is the minimum time period provided under the Rules to pass mutation order, are also preposterous. It is submitted that it was not 15 days but more than that. Further, applicant's adhering to the rules cannot be taken against him. He cannot be charged for speedy disposal of files. The allegations that 103 other mutation cases were pending in Tehsil Najafgarh since August 2008 to February 2009 are also false for the reason that the said files pertained not only to Tehsildar Najafgarh (ie. the applicant) but to entire Tehsil Najafgarh and a large number of cases out of the said 103 pertained to the then 'Naib Tehsildar who had been exclusively assigned such work related to a number of villages. It is not as if he had kept 103 files pending and given a special attention to the case in question. The records of the files disposed off by him will reveal that he always tried to decide the files expeditiously and there may be a pendency of few files because of reasons (OA No.2141/2016) (13) of parties or their counsels seeking adjournments In such circumstances there has been no preferential treatment to anybody by the applicant It is further submitted that respondents have no material/evidence to support this allegation which otherwise also, is vague and unspecific. Such wild allegations show that there has been no application of mind by the respondents.
11. The applicant reiterates that it lies only with the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision to initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of complaint/material produced before it. After the decision to initiate departmental proceedings is taken by the Disciplinary Authority, the office concerned may then collect further material, draft a charge sheet on that basis and place it before the Disciplinary Authority seeking approval. The authority concerned is then required to satisfy itself on the basis of material submitted before it and then it may or may not approve the draft chargesheet. Once the draft chargesheet is approved, the Disciplinary Authority may itself or through its offices, cause the delivery of chargesheet to the employee concerned calling for his reply/statement in defence. This reply/statement of defence, (OA No.2141/2016) (14) if submitted is required to be considered as calling for reply/statement in defence is not to be an empty formality. When the employee furnishes a detailed reply making submissions on merits, the submissions require to be considered by due application of mind. This is an important stage of any enquiry proceedings since the power to review the chargesheet is inherent and at the same time, the employee can be saved of undue harassment also that the state does not get entangled and waste its resources and manpower in conducting a futile exercise (Refer: GOI OM mentioned above). It is further trite in law that any order passed by the authorities must be speaking and reasoned, reflecting due consideration of submissions made before it. Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the reply of the applicant and if found untenable, then pass a reasoned and speaking order and only then the IO/PO could be legally appointed. However, in the present case, the respondents have miserably failed to act in accordance with law. It is also learnt that neither the Disciplinary Authority has taken any decision to initiate the charge proceedings against the applicant nor the chargesheet has been approved by him. Furthermore, the reply has also not been considered by the competent authority.
(OA No.2141/2016) (15)
12. The respondents in their reply have vehemently denied the contention of the applicant, as the Memorandum No. 7(7)/2009/DOV/0710 dated 22.10.2014 u/r 14 of (CCS) Rules was issued with the approval of the competent Disciplinary Authority i.e. Hon'ble Lt. Govenor, Delhi with due application of mind on the basis of the abundant evidences available on the record. Thus, the aforesaid charge sheet is legal and valid. Likewise, the Disciplinary Authority appointed IO and PO vide orders dated 31.05.2016 after considering the statement of defence dated 29.07.2015 of the applicant against the aforesaid charge sheet memorandum. Therefore, orders dated 31.05.2016 are also legal and valid as per rule.
13. Respondents submit that the statement of defense of the applicant against the charge sheet memorandum dated 22.10.2014 was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi and the averments made by the applicant were not found sufficient cause to recall the proposal in the charge memo issued, to inquire into the articles of charge framed against the applicant and accordingly IO and PO were appointed to proceed with the inquiry. Apart from above, in the spirit of the rule 14(5) (a) (OA No.2141/2016) (16) of CCS (CCA )Rules, 1965 read with Govt. of India OM dated 12.03.1981 and 08.12.1982, and also in the interest of fair play and natural justice, the comments of the concerned Revenue Department i.e. District South West (the Department where the misconduct was committed by the applicant) were obtained on the aforesaid defence reply of the applicant prior to placing the matter before the Disciplinary Authority. The contentions of the charged officer as regard to various powers conferred upon the Tehsildar under Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 have nowhere been questioned/challenged in the charge sheet memorandum dated 22.10.2014. The articles of the charge against the applicant are specific and the charges against him are for malafide acts which he performed in the capacity of Tehsildar in contravention of provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962 and without taking essential steps viz verifying the possession of land in question, passed mutations in respect of two tracts of land with ulterior motive and fraudulent manner. The charges against the applicant are that of lack of integrity, gross negligence and devotion to duty which is unbecoming of the Govt. servant in violation of provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(OA No.2141/2016) (17)
14. Drawing our attention to the relevant provisions of Rule 145 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, the respondents submit that an application for mutation of land can be made by the purchaser only after obtaining possession of the said land. However, in the instant case, the land continued to be in the possession of original land owner i.e Sh. Bhartu. In violation of the provisions of the said rule, Sh. Manjeet Singh, Tehsidar (Najafgarh) mutated the said land in favour of Sh. Arun Malhotra and M/s Haryali Estate Pvt Ltd., without verifying the fact whether the land in question was in possession of purchaser or not in the subsequent report dated 31.03 2009. Sh. Manjeet Sinbh. Tehsildar (Najafgarh) admitted the fact that the said land was in the possession of the original land owner Sh. Bhartu Had he verified the facts earlier, before sanctioning mutation, the fraud could have been averted (SIC). The defence reply of the applicant against the charge sheet was considered by the competent disciplinary authority. As regard his claim about following the relevant rules while passing orders for mutations of two tracts of land, the misconduct has been clearly brought out in the charge sheet memorandum dated 22.10 2014.
(OA No.2141/2016) (18)
15. It is further submitted that so as far as the contention of the applicant that the said mutation was sanctioned as per the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules and following the procedure provided in Section 22 & 23 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act read with Rules 139 to 146 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules is concerned, it is stated that Section 22 of Delhi Land Revenue Act 1954 mandates every person obtaining possession by transfer, other than lease, to report such transfer to Tehsildar. The section further lays that no Revenue Court shall entertain a suit/application by person obtaining possession until such person has made the report required by this section. Section 23 lays that Tehsildar is required to make such inquiry as appears necessary on receiving such report upon the facts otherwise coming to his knowledge. Thereafter Tehsildar shall direct Halka Patwari to record the same in Annual Register in undisputed cases whereas refer the case to Revenue Assistant in disputed cases.
16. In the present case, the applicant had entertained an application for mutation without receiving report of the transfer of possession in contravention to section 22 of Delhi Land Revenue Act. The applicant violated Rule 144 of Delhi (OA No.2141/2016) (19) Land Revenue Rule 1962 which prescribes that the proclamation may be issued only upon receipt of report of transfer of possession or upon elapsing of 3 months from the date of transfer, if no report is made. In the instant case neither the report was made of the transfer nor three months' had elapsed from the date of transfer. Yet the proclamation was issued on 18.02.2009 within two days of the receipt of application for mutation by the applicant. Thus the applicant sanctioned mutation in contravention to the procedure prescribed in sec 22 & 23 of Delhi Land Revenue Act read with rules 139 10 146 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules 1962. Also Rule 376 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules 1962 imposes addition liability & responsibility on presiding officer who passes mutation and the said rule directs that the mutation should be done with greatest possible case.
17. The respondents submit that the revenue estate Sherpur Dairy is as per the Revenue Record, a Be-Chirag Mauja (a village without any population) meaning thereby that the Revenue Estate in the name of the erstwhile Village is still existing whereas, practically the said village has ceased to exist in terms of population. As stated by the (OA No.2141/2016) (20) applicant, the proclamation was pasted in Ujwa village as Sherpur Dairy was reported to be a village without population. Whereas the seller Sh. Bharat Singh Bhartu was resident of Village Ghumanhera as recorded in Record of Rights, it was incumbent upon the applicant to get the proclamation pasted in Ghumanhera & not just any village on the pretext that Sherpur Dairy is Be-Chirag Mauja. Delhi Land Revenue Act Section 51 which provides mode of issuing proclamation states that wherever a proclamation is issued under this Act, copies thereof shall be posted in the court-house of the officer issuing it, at the headquarters of the Tehsil and at some place of public resort on or adjacent to the land to which it refers and if the officer issuing it so directs, the proclamation shall further be published by beat of drum on or near the land to which it refers. The applicant claims that notices were duly served & received by respective SPA holders of the sellers. In this regard it is stated that notices as a matter of tradition /rule should have been sent by post. In the present case the SPA holders received the notices in the office on 03.03.2009 for hearing on 05 03.2009 when mutation was sanctioned immediately. It is a matter of serious doubts as to how come the service of notice was not done till 03.03.2009 when SPA holders (OA No.2141/2016) (21) signed the same in the office. It is not clear as to how was it presumed that SPA holders shall come to office on 03.03.2009 where service of notice can be made. It was also in violation of Section 50 of Delhi Land Revenue Act 1954 which is reproduced below:
"Section 50: Mode of serving notices---- Every notice under this Act may be served ether by tendering delivering or sending a copy ther registered under the Indian Post Offices Act, 1998, to the person who be served or to his authorized agent or by affixing a copy there at some place of public resort on or adjacent to the land to which such notice refers."
18. Moreover, there is no provision of cancelation of Mutation by Tehsildar as per Act. Sanction of Mutation was granted by the applicant in apparent haste & in violation of provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Act 1954 & Delhi Land Revenue Rules 1962. Appeal against the order of Tarsitar les with DOADC according to Section 64 of Delhi Land Revenue Act which is reproduced below:
"64 Courts to which appeals lie (1) An aggel shall be under this Act-
(a) to the Settlement Officer of the Record Officer from orders passed by any Assistant Settlement Officer or Assistant Record Officer, respectively:
(b) to the Deputy Commissioner or to the Additional Collector specially empowered in this behalf from orders passed by the Revenue Assistant an Assistant Collector or Tehsildar (OA No.2141/2016) (22)
(c) to the Chief Commissioner from orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Collector, settlement Officer or Record Officer (2) No appeal shall be allowed from a non-judicial order not connected with settlement passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
19. Thus the applicant erred again by cancelling the mutation order himself His intimation to senior officers and cancellation of mutation order was a last minute effort to save himself, when he realized that he would be held responsible for the fraud and a party to thus fraudsters. The cancellation of mutation orders was also an attempt to cover up the deliberate irregularities observed by the applicant so that he appears to be honest and on right side of law. While a report of transfer of possession is mandated before application for mutation, it was not made in this case. In case of non-reporting of any such transfer, at last 3 month should have elapsed from the date of transfer. In this case mutation was sanctioned within 15 days of the execution of sale deed. Likewise proclamation was pasted in village unrelated to either the village of residents of seller or actual land question Also, after the issue of proclamation 15 days time is granted for receiving objections. The proclamation was issued on 18.02.2009 and exactly on 15th day, mutation (OA No.2141/2016) (23) was sanctioned i.e. leaving only 14 days to receive objections. Errors one after the other cannot be relegated to good intentions and this protection afforded u/s 188 Delhi Land Revenue Act is not available to the applicant.
20. The respondents also vehemently deny the contention of the applicant as there are no provisions for barring the Disciplinary Authority to issue charge sheet after a lapse of five years as the applicant is still in service. Further, the chargesheet has been issued after getting all the relevant / information from Revenue Department, as per rules. The applicant has also not quoted any provisions contrary to issuance of charge sheet. As regards his claim that the delay is fatal to the employee for reasons of loss of memory and loss of witnesses etc is unfounded firstly, he would get all the opportunities to go through all the evidence in record to defend his case during the inquiry proceedings.
21. We have heard both the counsels and perused the pleadings on record.
22. There are two articles of charge framed against the charged officer which reads as follows:
"Article-l (OA No.2141/2016) (24) That the said Sh. Manjeet Singh, adhoc DANICS, while functioning as Tehsildar (Najafgarh), office of Deputy Commissioner (South-West), Kapashera, New Delhi committed grave misconduct in as much as he sanctioned fraudulent mutation of agricultural land measuring 11 bighas [Mustatil No.14, out of Khasra No.13/2 (1-16), 18(4-16) and 23 (4-08)] on 05/03/2009, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Sherpur Dairy. Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi, in favour of Sh. Arun Malhotra, without summoning the original Bhoomidar/recorded land owner, in violation of the provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, and also without verifying the possession of land in question. By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh. Manjeet Singh, adhoc DANICS exhibited lack of integrity, gross negligence and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby violating the provisions of rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II That the said Sh. Manjeet Singh, adhoc DANICS, while functioning in the aforesaid post during the aforesaid period, committed grave misconduct in as much as he sanctioned fraudulent mutation of agricultural land measuring 46 bighas-06 biswas [Mustatil No.14, Killa Nos.22 East (3-02), Mustatil No.19, Killa Nos.2(4-16), 9(4-16), 10 (4-16),11 (4-16), 12 (4-16), 19(4-16), 20(4-16), 21(4-16) and 22(4-16)] on 05/03/2009, situated in the Revenue Estate of village Sherpur Dairy, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi, in favour of M/s Haryali Estates Pvt. Ltd., without summoning the original Bhoomidar/recorded land owner, in violation of the provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, and also without verifying the possession of land in question. By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh. Manjeet Singh, adhoc DANICS exhibited lack of integrity, gross negligence and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
(OA No.2141/2016) (25)
23. The first charge, as evident from the above, is that he sanctioned fraudulent mutation of aforesaid agricultural land measuring 11 bighas in favour of one Shri Arun Malhotra, without summoning the original bhoomidar/recorded land owner, in violation of provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962. He also did not verify the possession of land in question. The second charge against him relates to sanctioning fraudulent mutation of above agricultural land measuring 46 bighas 06 biswas in favour of M/s Haryali Estates Pvt. Ltd. and here also he did not summon the original Bhoomidar/recorded land owner and did not verify the possession of land in question. Reading of aforementioned charges points out towards a common misconduct of fraudulent mutation inasmuch as the original recorded land owner was not called and it was not verified as to whether under whose possession the land was.
24. There is no dispute that the applicant was functioning as a Tehsildar and per Section 3(6) of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, the Revenue Court includes 'Tehsildar' and his orders are appealable as per Section 64 of the said Act. The question at stake is whether while granting mutation (OA No.2141/2016) (26) he needs to summon the original recorded land owner and whether there is a requirement to verify the possession as per the said Delhi Land Revenue Act or Rules.
25. We have gone through the duties and functions of Tehsildar as entailed in Section 356 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1962, which read as follows:
"356. Duties and Functions - In addition to the duties imposed specially by an Act, Ordinance or regulation or any rules framed thereunder or orders of the Chiếf Commissioner upon Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar as such, the principal duties shall be as under:
1. To see that land records are maintained correctly and all subordinate staff discharges their duties efficiently and properly.
2. To see that the Land Revenue Jamabandies and Jamabandies of Asamis of Gaon Sabhas are prepared correctly and in time.
3. To see that action regarding assessment, re-
imposition or revision of land revenue wherever necessary is expeditiously initiated.
4. To see that whenever required by law, timely action for filing of suits or initiating proceedings on behalf of a Gaon Sabha or Deputy Commissioner or Government is taken by him or the person concerned.
5. To keep in safe custody all Government money and property, which is placed in his charge.
6. To supervise and check the land records work in accordance with the rules.
7. To collect supplies for troops marching through the tahsil.
(OA No.2141/2016) (27)
8. To report to the Revenue Assistant-
(a) all cases of alluvion and diluvion which have to be reported under the rules:
(b) all cases in which revenue-free grants, pensions, assignments, etc. are extinguished and lapsed to Government;
(c) all cases in which the condition on which a revenue-
free grant. Compensation or assignment etc. was made has been broken;
(d) all seasonal calamities affecting the crops and any break of epidemic. sickness or unusual mortality among human beings or cattle;
(e) all cases of serious fluctuations in agricultural prosperity:
(f) all cases affecting seriously the fertility of the soil:
(g) all escheats through failure of heirs.
9. To keep the Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Assistant in touch with all important social, economic and political movements in the tahsil.
10. To act generally as an executive officer of the Government under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Assistant in all matters connected with the land revenue and general administration of the tahsil.
11. To supervise the work of the Gaon Sabhas in tahsil especially with regard to the management of land and property.
12. To make quarterly inspection of the tahsil officials submit inspection notes to the Deputy Commissioner through the Revenue Assistant and have defects removed."
(OA No.2141/2016) (28)
26. Tahsildar has also been assigned certain duties with regard to land records, as mentioned in Section 358 of the same rules, which is as follows:
"358. Duties with regard to Land Records (1) Tahsildar and Naib-Tahsildar shall remain in constant touch with the and records staff of the tahsil.
(2) The main duties of Tahsildar and Naib-Tahsildar in connection with land records shall be as follows:-
I. Testing of Girdawar Kanungo's work.
II. Supervision of Office Kanungo's Office.
III. Supervision of patwari school, if any.
IV. Disposal of mutation reports.
V. Disposal of Miscellaneous reports received from patwaries and Kanungos.
VI. Drawing up of explanatory supplements to statistical returns.
VII. Indenting of patwari and Kanungo Forms."
27. As per Rule 415 of Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, relates to judicial and non-judicial matters which are as follows:
"415. Judicial and non-judicial matters (1) Proceedings, orders, appeals revisions and references in the following cases shall be deemed judicial for the purposes of the Act:-
(a) Mutation in cases of succession or transfer under sections 23 and 27;
(OA No.2141/2016) (29)
(b) Settlement of boundary disputes under sections 28 and 36;
(c) Other disputed cases relating to entries in the record of rights and annual registers under Sections 26, 27, 29 and 39.
(2) All cases, proceedings and other matters under the Act not covered by the preceding sub-rule shall be deemed non-judicial.
(3) In cases of doubt, whether the matter is of a judicial or non-judicial nature a report shall be submitted to the Chief Commissioner for orders whose decision shall be final."
28. As per Rule 415 (a), proceedings, orders, appeals, references and revisions in the matters of mutation under Sections 23 and 27 are deemed judicial.
29. In the present case, the mutations were sanctioned on the basis of registered sale deed which was indicated that permission of sale was granted by Additional District Magistrate. In the transfer of possessions the registered sale deed, the seller was identified by the SHO of concerned Police Station and the applicant issued orders on the basis of material available on his court file. We do not find any such provision which mandates to notify the original land owner, more so when there is a registered sale deeds indicating transfer of possessions. Similarly, there is no provision under the Act or Rules requiring the 'Tehsildar' (OA No.2141/2016) (30) to visit the property to verify 'possession'. The mode prescribed in the rules is issuance of proclamation. Proclamation Rules 144 and 145 which provide as follows:
"144. Proclamation to be issued-Immediately upon the receipt of a report from a party under Section 22, whether separately or by signatures of the party on the report of the patwari, of if no such report is made under Section 22, then three months after the date of succession, or transfer, or if that period has elapsed before the facts came to notice, then immediately on their coming to notice the Tahsildar shall issue a proclamation free of charge notifying that proceedings, for mutation of names have been instituted.
145. Particulars to be specified in the proclamation- The proclamation shall -
(a) specify the particulars required to be furnished by Rule 139(1):
(b) specify the date on which the proclamation was issued:
(c) specify the date (being not less than fifteen days from the date of the proclamation) upto which any objection to the mutation of names being ordered in favour of the person who has acquired the right, will be entertained:
(d) require the person who has acquired the right and any person who may desire to file any objection, to attend upon that date and to produce such evidence as they may desire to produce; and
(e) require the patwari within whose circle the property or any portion thereof is situated, to attend upon that date which such records relating to the property as are in his custody.
Note-When the person making the report or signing a report made to copy of the order of the court appointing him as such, it shall not be provisions of the Insolvency Act and attaches to the report an (OA No.2141/2016) (31) authoritative copy of the order of the court appointing him as such, it shall not be necessary for the Tahsildar to require the official receiver to attend in person on the date given in the proclamation. It will be only necessary to do so and to call for proof or possession if and when any objection is filed."
30. We find that such proclamation was issued in the manner prescribed, inasmuch as it clearly mentioned next date of hearing, and inviting objections if any. Moreover, the report of the concerned Patwari confirmed that proclamation was duly made and pasted in Ujwa village, as village Sherpur Dairy was reported to be a village without population. Also the individual notices were duly served and received by Special Power of Attorney holder of the seller. The notices were also issued in respect of each Bhumidar through his attorney.
31. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to Paras 13 and 14 of the written submissions which are as follows:
"13. That in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (JT 1995 )5) SC 366 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"43. Xxx In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge sheet is rendered (OA No.2141/2016) (32) illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication where under quasi judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings."
14. That upon a third Member Reference in OA No. 1400/2017 decided Won 03. on 03.09.2018, the Hon'ble Court returned a finding after referring to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in Zunjarrao, Ramesh Chander Singh, K.K. Dhawan, Duli Chand cases, and Hon'ble Madras High Court in Dr. G. Sreekumar Menon held as follows:-
"18. A harmonious reading of the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court leaves no doubt in my mind that a government official exercising powers of quasi- judicial authority cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for committing any mistake of law but if there is "something more", then he can certainly be subjected to such proceedings."
32. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that seen in the light of the above-cited judgments, it is clear that there were no allegations of corruption or 'quid pro quo' or favourtism against the applicant. Moreover, such impugned orders were passed in exercise of his quasi- judicial power and statutory jurisdiction.
33. We find strength in the argument. The decision taken by the Tehsildar was in a quasi judicial capacity and (OA No.2141/2016) (33) keeping in view the same in mind and also the fact that there is a provision of statutory appeal against such orders and there are no allegations of favouritism levelled against the applicant, no other motive can be attributed to the action of the applicant. It also appears that the Bhumidar/original recorded owner in one of the two mentioned charges is that Shri Bharat Singh @ Bhartu made a complaint of fraud against the buyer, seller, witnesses, Sub-Registrar and Staff of Sub-Registrar Office, based on which the mutation was granted but there is no aspersion against the 'Tehsildar' in the complaint made by the Bhoomidars.
34. Further, the learned counsel has also brought before us that when the Tehsildar came to know of the fraud, he cancelled the mutations and informed the Department of the Head. This clearly indicates his intent. However, we have not gone into the merit of the same, as this is not a matter for consideration before us.
35. In view of above, the OA is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 22.10.2014 and the final orders dated 31.05.2016 are not sustainable in the eyes of laws and the same are (OA No.2141/2016) (34) set aside. The applicant will also be entitled for all consequential benefits as per rule. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/