Gujarat High Court
Vinodkumar Kantilal Tanna vs District Collector, Gandhinagar on 28 March, 2022
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1316 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VINODKUMAR KANTILAL TANNA
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GANDHINAGAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 28/03/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
Page 1 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order of the Tribunal viz. Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, in Appeal No.164 of 2015, by which, the Tribunal, confirmed the order of the District Collector dated 20.02.2015. By the aforesaid orders, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect.
4. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was working as a Circle Officer. While he was so working, a show cause notice dated 24.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner. According to the show cause notice, while the petitioner was serving as a Circle Officer at Mamlatdar office, Gandhinagar, one entry no.13016 was mutated in the revenue record based on the registered sale deed dated 02.12.2011. The entry was thereafter cancelled by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, on 28.03.2012. Since the Page 2 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 entry was thereafter again mutated by the Mamlatdar, the petitioner certified the same. The case of the employer is that the petitioner did not take care in certifying an entry which according to the department was earlier cancelled. A response was filed by the petitioner on 01.05.2013 pointing out that the petitioner was aware of the earlier order of the Mamlatdar, rejecting entry no.13016 and only when he received the entry for certification on verifying that the purchaser was an agriculturist, he certified the same.
5. Mr.Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner amongst other arguments, would submit that apart from the fact that he not being aware of the earlier order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner was acting in his quasi-judicial capacity. Even otherwise, the very entry which the petitioner certified was confirmed by the SSRD vide an order dated 16.08.2018. The action having attained finality inasmuch as having been tested judicially by the highest authority of the State on the judicial side, no misconduct can be Page 3 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 attributed to the petitioner.
6. On approaching the Tribunal when the order of penalty was passed, the Tribunal by the order impugned in the petition merely reiterated the stand of the department and opined that since negligence was writ large on the conduct of the petitioner inasmuch as, he did not exercise due caution in certifying the entry and once the inquiry officer has held the charge to be proved, there was no reason for the Tribunal to interfere with the order of penalty.
7. Reliance was placed on the decision in case of Naresh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand rendered in W.P. (S) No.7354 of 2019, delivered by a coordinate bench of the Jharkhand High Court, wherein, a penalty order was under challenge. One of the grounds on which the order of penalty was challenged was that an exercise of mutation carried out by revenue officer was in exercise of his judicial capacity. In exercise of his extraneous consideration, Mr.Shah would submit that the penalty was Page 4 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 misconceived.
8. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP for the State would draw the attention of the Court to the reply filed on behalf of the State by the Collector, Gandhinagar. Once the entry was cancelled by the competent authority, Mamlatdar on 28.03.2012, according to the department, the Circle Officer has no power or jurisdiction to certify the entry. From the cancellation of the entry, an appeal has to be filed under Rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules and it was the duty of the Circle Officer to act with due diligence and certify the entry after verifying all records which the petitioner did not.
9. Mr.Desai would submit that a penalty of stoppage of two increments to the petitioner with future effect was only on the ground that the petitioner had certified entry of sale deed beyond his power and therefore had shown serious negligence in discharge of his duties. This was a misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules.
Page 5 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022
10. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal in context of the charge levelled against the petitioner would indicate that the department was of the view that the petitioner had committed a misconduct as Circle Officer at the Mamlatdar office. An entry 13016 was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 02.12.2011. The stand of the department in the charge-sheet was once that entry was cancelled by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, on 28.03.2012, the petitioner could not have certified such entry and and mutate the same in the revenue record on 07.12.2012. The action of the petitioner as a Circle Officer in certifying the entry despite it having been cancelled by the Mamlatdar was an act of negligence in discharge of his duties as a Circle Officer.
11. Though the matter of certification of entries and mutation of entries are actions which can be subject to appeals in the hierarchy of revenue laws, a coordinate bench of the Jharkhand High Court while discussing the role of the Revenue Officer in Page 6 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 discharge of his duties and certifying entries has held as under:
"17. With regard to continuation of proceedings after retirement, learned counsel for the respondent-State relied on judgment in the case of "Jag Narain Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & others" reported in 2015 SCC Online Jhar 3296 in which in para 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"5.It however appears from considering the submissions of the parties that apprehension of the petitioner for continuance of the Departmental Proceeding on that ground is misplaced. Pension Rules do not lay down a procedure for conduct of Departmental Proceeding. If an employee has retired during the pendency of a Departmental Proceeding, the only difference that could result is in the nature of punishment which in that case, would be governed by the provisions of Jharkhand Pension Rules. Therefore, when the proceedings initiated at the time of his service did not end up finally before his retirement, they would be deemed to have continued after retirement of the petitioner. This proposition is also well settled by the Full Bench judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Shri Krishna Singh V. Union of India [2011 (1) PLJR 665]. Counsel for the parties are not able to apprise the Court as to whether Departmental Proceeding has been concluded or whether Inquiry Officer has finally submitted his report."
18. The enquiry report has been annexed as Annexuer-6 to the writ petition. The enquiry officer with regard to the Garmajurwa Malik Page 7 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 land has stated that the jamabandi of the said land was registered in the year, 1965-66 and on that basis the petitioner has mutated the land only to that effect enquiry officer has given finding that there is financial loss to the government. The enquiry officer has recorded that so far as the Kaiser-e- hind land is concerned which was on the basis of Partition Suit No. 185 of 1966, the order of mutation was passed. On perusal of enquiry report it transpires that not even a single witness has been examined to prove the charges against the petitioner. The documents relied in the enquiry proceeding was required to be proved by way of adducing evidence. For the Garmajurwa Malik land, petitioner passed mutation order on the basis of running name of Chandan Sao and Bharat Sao. The name of Chandan Sao and Bharat Sao was recorded in Register-II on 23.01.1989. Pursuant to partition of land from Chandan Sao and Bharat Sao to one Jai Bhawani Co- operative Grih Nirman Samiti, mutation was done for the same partition was incumbent to the petitioner. The petitioner only followed prescribed procedure and looked into the Register-II record and passed the order. With regard to Kaiser-e-hind, mutation was done by the petitioner on the basis of final decree in Partition Suit No. 185 of 1966. In that view of the matter and considering the Circular of 1997 that can be challenged only in suit before competent civil court if possession of more than 12 years is there. The petitioner was not the authority to decide and to file suit. The judgment passed in quasi-judicial can be corrected by preferring statutory appeal and review. In the light of these discussions the Court has to consider whether for deciding the mutation case, is there any misconduct on the part of the petitioner or not ? On perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioner has followed all Page 8 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 the statutory procedures for passing mutation order before the petitioner was not entitle to empower transfer of land in question. The petitioner has acted on the basis of Register-II. The mutation order was passed on the basis of possession and mutation itself does not show right, title and interest that has been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Pradip Prasad" (case). The petitioner passed order on the basis of possession of Chandan Sao and Bharat Sao and after looking into the possession nor manner of possession, which has been considered in the case of "Lal Muni Devi" (supra) and Depta Tewari (supa). It is well-settled proposition of law that mutation does not create any right and title in the property. It is simply an evidence of possession for the land. This aspect of the matter has been considered in the case of "Smt. Urmila Prasad"
(supra). Thus, it transpires that the Department has proceeded against the petitioner for a misconduct which cannot be said misconduct in view of duties prescribed to the petitioner and the record suggest that the petitioner has acted in terms of prescribed procedure for passing mutation order. The proceeding was initiated under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and after retirement of the petitioner it was not converted under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and merely it has been observed by the authorities that the proceeding is same.
For taking shelter of Rule, 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, financial loss has to be determined which has not been done in the case in hand and Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has been invoked against the petitioner which is not in accordance with law in view of the facts stated hereinabove. So far as the judgement relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in "N. Gangarai"
(supra) that is not in dispute with regard to Page 9 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 judicial review. However, the case in hand, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this judgement is not applicable as in the present case misconduct itself has not been proved. So far as the judgment in the case of "
Heem Singh" (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State is on different footing. In that case, criminal case arises out of regular trial where in the present case, the criminal case has been quashed by the High Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This judgment is not helping the respondent-State. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in the case of "K. Rajappa Menon" (supra) was prior to 42nd amendment of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad" Vs. Karunakar"
reported in (1993) 4 SCC 27 in para 25 & 26 has held as under:-
"25. While the right to represent against the findings in the report is part of the reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry viz., before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings in the report, the right to show cause against the penalty proposed belongs to the second stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the findings in the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the employee and proposes to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first right is the right to prove innocence. The second right is to plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty although the conclusion regarding the guilt is accepted. It is the second right exercisable at the second stage which was taken away by the Forty-second Amendment.Page 10 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022
C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022
26. The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the enquiry officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the enquiry officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the enquiry officer were only to record the evidence Page 11 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the enquiry officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the enquiry officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the enquiry officer and the representation of the employee against it."
19. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in " K.K. Dhawan" (supra) is concerned, in that case it was considered that the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers if the person acts negligently or recklessly in order to confer undue favour to a person is not acting as a judge which is not subject matter in the case in hand. In the case of "Arvind Ballabh Chaubey"
(supra) relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the prima facie materials on record, the Court has come to the conclusion in that case that the petitioner has passed the order negligently against the interest of justice. In "Jag Narain Singh"
(supra) relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, the Court directed to Page 12 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 conclude the disciplinary proceeding to logical conclusion and the petitioner of that case was directed to co-operate with the disciplinary proceeding.
20. As a cumulative effect of the discussions made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for consequential benefits.
21. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of."
12. While deciding the issue, the Jharkhand High Court took into consideration in case of Union of India & Others Vs. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph no.28 of the judgment.
"28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. Accordingly, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. It is important to bear in mind that in the present case, we are not concerned with the correctness or legality of the decision of the respondent but the conduct of the respondent in discharge of his duties as an officer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases:Page 13 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022
C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022
(i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant;
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great".
13. In that case while dealing with the delinquency in case of an Income Tax Officer who was exercising quasi judicial powers, the Court opined that unless and until the government was of the opinion that while exercising quasi judicial powers, act was actuated by corrupt motive and extraneous consideration, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to expose an employee to disciplinary proceedings.
14. In the facts of the present case, what is found is that Page 14 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/1316/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/03/2022 the action of the petitioners certifying an entry had stood the test of a judicial order inasmuch as, the SSRD has confirmed the order of the Circle Officer, therefore, even otherwise, in absence of any extraneous consideration alleged against the petitioner, it was not open for the respondent to initiate any departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
15. Consequentially, the order of penalty dated 20.05.2015 passed by the District Collector, Gandhinagar and the order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar passed in Appeal No.164 of 2015 dated 06.06.2014 (17.06.2019) are quashed and set aside.
16. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 15 of 15 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 31 21:07:38 IST 2022