Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.N.S.Sikarwar vs State Of M.P on 19 May, 2016
1
Writ Petition No.2813/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SB: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. DHARMADHIKARI
Writ Petition No.2813/2012
R.N.S. Sikarwar
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
Whether reportable :- Yes /No
_______________________________________________
For petitioner : Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate for the
applicant.
For Respondent : Ku. Sudha Shrivastava, Panel
Lawyer, for the respondent/State.
ORDER
(Delivered on this Day of 19th May,2016) Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the part of the order dated 23.04.2011 passed in Case No.41/2009-2010 Revision (Amar Singh Vs. Smt. Vimla Devi) by the respondent No.2. (2) The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
(i) That the part of the impugned order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure 2 Writ Petition No.2813/2012 P/1) with regard to the derogatory remarks/comments against the petitioner and the direction regarding initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner may kindly be quashed with respect to the petitioner.
(ii) That the respondent No.3 be further directed not to take any coercive step in pursuance to the order (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 with further direction not to take any coercive step in pursuance to the same.
(iii) That any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted.
(3) The grievance of the petitioner is to the remark contained in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 to the extent of observing thus, ^^vr,o mijksDr foospuk ds en~nsutj vkosnd dk nkok [kkfjt djrs gq, vukosfndk rFkk vU; ¼ yk[ku flag] iku flag] yky flag] jkeknsoh½ ds uke uk;c rglhynkj }kjk ikfjr O;oLFkkiu vkns'k fnukad 27@6@2005 ¼iz-dza- 12@2004&05@v&19 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk lkFk gh Hkwfe;kWa ¼ ftudk fooj.k uk;c rglhynkj ds vkns'k esa of.kZr gS½ 'kkldh; ntZ djus ds vkns'k fn, tkrs gSaA lkFk gh rRdkyhu uk;c rglhynkj] iVokjh rFkk Hkwfe O;oLFkkiu djkus okys vukosndksa ds fo:) iqfyl dk;Zokgh ds funZs'k fn, tkrs gS^^ (4) The petitioner while being posted as Naib 3 Writ Petition No.2813/2012 Tehsildar, Gohad, the landless persons moved an application for settlement of the Govt. land which is "Behad" and were in possession of such lands since last 10-12 years and were cultivating the same. One of those persons moved an application as per the provisions of revenue book circular under Clause 4.3 and Clause 24. An order dated 27.06.2005 was passed in the settlement proceedings. Against the settlement proceedings dated 27.06.2005 one Amar Singh, who is not an aggrieved party nor is interested party had preferred an appeal under Section 4 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the S.D.O., who upheld the order of settlement vide order dated 31.03.2010. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the S.D.O. Dated 31.03.2010, Amar Singh filed a revision before the respondent No.2. In the said revision, the petitioner was not a party. The respondent No.2 reversed the order passed by the S.D.O. as well as the order passed in the settlement proceedings and, on the other hand, also passed the derogatory remarks in the last paragraph of the order and directed the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner who happened to be Naib Tehshildar at that point of time. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in which the 4 Writ Petition No.2813/2012 aforesaid derogatory remarks were passed. It came to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently when he received information from the office of respondent No.3 on 09.04.2012. On the said derogatory remarks over the functioning of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that while functioning as Naib Tehshildar, he acted and performed his work in exercise of powers vested under Revenue book circular and has passed the order of settlement on 27.06.2005. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the petitioner was not a party before the appellate authority i.e. the S.D.O. or before the revisional authority i.e. respondent No.2 and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the derogatory remarks/comments were uncalled for since it causes serious prejudice to the petitioner.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 6 S.C.C. 491 and the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Sharma Vs. State of M.P. And Others (W.P.No.89/2002 dated 05.09.2006) 5 Writ Petition No.2813/2012 contending that while rendering this finding of derogatory remarks/comments by the respondent No.2, no opportunity of any kind was afforded to the petitioner before passing such derogatory remarks.
(7) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said derogatory remarks issued by the respondent No.2. exposes the petitioner to disciplinary action/Police action and the petitioner is left with no scope to apply mind independently to the alleged misdemeanor. The petitioner further contends that the action of respondent No.2 which entails civil/criminal consequence of adverse nature ought to be preceded by compliance of principle of natural justice so as to facilitate rationality into the decision of the executive authority and in the process uphold the rule of law.
(7) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and at the same time argued that the impugned order deserves to be maintained. The counsel further submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as bare perusal of the same clarifies that the fact that in order to extend some undue benefits to the persons, the 6 Writ Petition No.2813/2012 petitioner had acted dishonestly and did not discharge his duties as was expected to do and, therefore, the findings given by the authority warrants no interference. (8) At the very outset, it is made clear that this Court is neither concerned with the merits of the order passed by the respondent No.2 not this Court is required to dwell upon the legal pregnability of the order passed by the respondent No.2, but this Court is only obliged to address to the issue;
"whether the aforesaid derogatory remarks and the directions to initiate Police action against the petitioner has been made in consonance with the principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned derogatory remarks is sustainable? (9) After hearing the learned counsel for the both the parties and on perusal of the adverse remark mentioned in the last page of the impugned order dated 23.04.2011 contained in Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.2, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the derogatory remarks/comments to the extent of being adverse to the petitioner as quoted above, is unsustainable . (10) This Court hastens to add that allowing this petition shall not foreclose the right of the disciplinary 7 Writ Petition No.2813/2012 authority to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law without being influenced by the said derogatory remarks.
(11) Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned remarks as reproduced supra are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.
No order as to costs.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ( 19/05/2016) LJ