Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vinodchandra Kantilal Tanna on 4 October, 2023
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 789 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8304 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 789 of 2023
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 790 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7844 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING OF ORDER/STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 790 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7844 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 795 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7716 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 795 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7716 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1072 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8382 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1072 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8382 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1087 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7760 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1087 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7760 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1088 of 2023
Page 1 of 11
Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023
undefined
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7847 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1088 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7847 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VINODCHANDRA KANTILAL TANNA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR YATIN OZA, SR.ADVCOCATE with MS SRUSHTI A THULA(5014) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date :04/10/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sanjay Page 2 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined Udhwani for the appellant and learned senior advocate Mr.Yatin Oza assisted by learned advocate Ms.Shrushti Thula for the respondent - original petitioner, in each case.
2. Preferred by the State, all these six Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against common judgment and order dated 30.11.2022 of learned single Judge. Thereby, learned single Judge allowed all the writ petitions to set aside the show cause notices dated 29.8.2020 and charge-sheets given to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is same in all cases who was given the show cause notices and was thereafter issued the charge-sheets for the alleged misconduct. Taking representative facts from the first captioned case, it was the case of the petitioner that he was working under the respondent authority as Circle Officer since 29.3.2012 and presently as Deputy Mamlatdar, Mansa, kept under suspension. During the period from 6.3.2013 to 16.3.2013, when the petitioner was discharging his duties as Circle Officer, Rural Inspection Officer conducted preliminary inquiry in respect of 224 revenue entries mutated by the petitioners. The entries were investigated by the Collector and the team of officers. It was stated by the petitioner that investigation was not completed for four and half years, whereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.8.2017, the petitioner responded with letter dated 6.9.2017 and asked for certain documents.
3.1 Thereafter, charge sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 4.12.2020. The charges levelled against the Page 3 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined petitioner were about dealing with and disposing of the revenue entries before the expiry of notice period, mentioning wrong reason for cancellation of the entries, committing mistake in the sequence of dealing with the two entries and deletion by making erroneous endorsement against the entry.
3.2 The facts of each petition may be briefly noticed. In the first case of Letters Patent Appeal No. 789 of 2023, charge-sheet dated 04.12.2020 was issued in which irregularities were alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in respect of dealing with different revenue entries. In the charge-sheet, dealing of 17 entries by the petitioner was mentioned by stating that the revenue entry was disposed of before expiry of notice period, wrong ground was mentioned for cancellation. The names of the heirs were not indicated in proper sequence, the certification of entries was without commanding the total facts, without collecting the evidence about status of farmers, etc. 3.3 In Special Civil Application No. 7844 of 2012, relatable to Letters Patent Appeal No. 790 of 2023, charge-sheet was dated 02.11.2019, wherein also, in total, 18 entries were mentioned, alleged to have been dealt, with similar kind of irregularities. In relation to Special Civil Application No.7716 of 2022, which is Letters Patent Appeal No. 795 of 2023, the charge-sheet was issued on 02.06.2020 containing similar charges. In the same way, in the rest of the three Letters Patent Appeals, the charges dated 22.11.2019, dated 02.12.2019 and dated 26.05.2020 were issued. The allegations in all were of similar kind and nature about irregularly dealing with the revenue entries.
3.4 Various grounds were raised before learned single Judge to Page 4 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined call in question the decision on part of the authorities to issue the charge-sheet. It was submitted that about certification of the entries by the petitioner, nobody raised any objection, nor the Collector exercised suo motu powers to cancel the entries. It was contended that the show cause notices wrongly mentioned that the petitioner had certified the entries by acting beyond its powers. It was stated that under the provisions of Section 135-D of the Land Revenue Code read with Rule 107 (1) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, the person not below the rank of first clerk of Mamlatdar or other designated officer can certify the mutation entry. It was the case that the petitioner had acted to the best of its judgment in dealing with different entries and certifying the same.
4. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there were several entries which were wrongly dealt with by the petitioner delinquent. It was submitted that the volume and number of entries itself was sufficient to suggest the seriousness of the charges. It was submitted that there were 127 entries, dealt with by the petitioner. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge relied on decision in other cases of the petitioner himself, however, the said cases had gone to the Tribunal, whereas in instant cases, the petitions were straightway filed before this Court. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, where departmental action was needed to be initiated.
4.1 Learned single Judge noted that the function discharged by the petitioner in capacity of Circle Officer in dealing with the Page 5 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined revenue entries was judicial function. The decision in Naresh Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand rendered in Writ Petition No.7354 of 2019, by Jharkhand High Court was referred to ans relief upon wherein also penalty was imposed against the petitioner in respect of the exercise of mutation carried out by the petitioner Revenue Officer.
4.2. In granting relief to the petitioners and setting aside the charge-sheet and show cause notices issued to them, learned single Judge primarily relied on the decision of this court in Vinodkumar Kantilal Tanna Vs. District Collector, Gandhinagar being Special Civil Application No.1316 of 2021 which was the case of the very petitioner. The facts of the said case and allegations levelled against the petitioner were on the same lines that while the petitioner had been serving as Circle Officer, entry No.13016 was mutated in the revenue records based on registered sale deed dated 2.12.2011, which was subsequently cancelled by the Mamlatdar. The petitioner, however, again certified the same for which his defence was that he was never aware about the earlier order of Mamlatdar. The charge of misconduct was levelled against the petitioner for committing alleged irregularity in certifying the entry.
4.2.1 The District Collector imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect which was confirmed in appeal by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. Learned single Judge set aside the said orders to notice that apart that the petitioner's defence was that he was ignorant of the order of Mamlatdar, the petitioner had been acting in quasi-judicial capacity and that the certification of entries was confirmed by the revisional authority.
Page 6 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined 4.3 The Special Civil Application No.1316 of 2021 which was the case of very petitioner involved one of 127 revenue entries dealt with by the petitioner in different manner. In respect of all those entries, the allegations against the petitioner were that certification by the petitioner of those entries was irregular in different way, thereby the petitioner committed misconduct. The charge-sheet and show cause notices issued in the present case was similar and contained almost same allegations excepting that the grounds for certification of entries and dealing with the entries weighed with the petitioner were different.
4.4 Learned single Judge was justified in observing that the punishment in the said case in respect of the same petitioner was rightly set aside since the petitioner exercised quasi judicial powers. It was stated that if any employee has passed any orders which are not actuated by corrupt motive or extraneous consideration, it was not open for the authority to take action on the ground of misconduct.
4.5 The following observations were passed by learned single Judge in para 8, "All the aforesaid entries, for which the charge- sheets have been issued, have become final and it is also an undisputed fact that the higher authority has not exercised any suo motu review powers to set aside the revenue entries certified by the petitioner. No appeal is filed against the certification of the revenue entries for all these years. The petitioner had certified the entries in the year 2012 and the charge-sheets are issued in the year 2020."
Page 7 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined 4.6 In light of the decision in aforementioned Special Civil Application No.1316 of 2021, had the background of similar nature of facts and allegations regarding the revenue entry, learned single Judge was justified in taking view that in the present case the other charge-sheet issued for the similar charge, whereby the entries were certified exercising quasi- judicial powers, the petitioner could not be forced to be embroiled in departmental proceedings for any misconduct.
5. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. K.K.Dhawan [(1993) 2 SCC 56], deserves to be pertinently notice, "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.
5.1 It was concluded that disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases, (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 Page 8 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined 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.
5.2 In the present case, the charge against the petitioner was that he dealt with revenue entries in irregular manner while certifying it. The certification was wrong. The allegations were elaborated in the charge-sheet. The function discharged by the petitioner in that regard was his quasi-judicial duty. The attendant aspects are that against the certification of the entry, no complaint was filed by any private party. No party preferred the appeal in respect of or against the decision of the petitioner about the entries. The revisional authority could have taken the entries into suo motu revision. It was not done, for, no illegalities was found. The certification of entries was acted upon and whatever beneficial consequence were to entail, they entailed. Against that also no complaint or grievance was raised by anybody. The entries were therefore accepted.
5.3 The principle is that when something is done in exercise of quasi-judicial powers, until such exercise or conduct is found to be actuated or tainted by corrupt motive and extraneous consideration, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the employee or government servant would not be justified. Any error committed simplicitor in discharge of quasi-judicial powers could hardly be treated as misconduct in absence of any corrupt Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined or extraneous attributions.
5.4 It is also to be noticed that the alleged illegalities in dealing with the entries were relatable to the year 2011 whereas the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet for his alleged conduct only in the year 2019 and 2020. The delay of 7 to 8 years in issuing charges has to be viewed to be an aspect to vitiate the action on the part of the authorities and to operate to the prejudice to the petitioner.
5.5 When in above referred identical case, involving the same petitioner, this Court has given clean chit to the petitioner, holding in his favour that the conduct of the petitioner did not amount to misconduct, in the present cases, learned Single Judge was eminently justified in following the said decision to allow the petitions. It was rightly observed by learned Single Judge that in respect of identical charges, penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect imposed upon the petitioner came to be set aside and therefore, any further departmental proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge-sheets, which are of the same kind and nature, would be a futile exercise.
5.6 Learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner also submitted that the judgment of learned Single Judge has been implemented. Highlighting the subsequent development, it was stated that subsequent to the judgment, the period of suspension of the petitioner has been regularized and increments and monetary benefits for the period are paid and further the higher pay-scale is also granted. It was submitted that sealed cover was opened and the promotion has also been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired on Page 10 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/789/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined 30.06.2023. No due certificate, no inquiry certificate is also issued by the employer.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and orders of learned single Judge booked no error. The interference in the orders impugned thus is not warranted.
7. All the six Letters Patent Appeals are accordingly dismissed.
The Civil Applications are disposed of as not surviving.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) Manshi Page 11 of 11 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 05 20:44:58 IST 2023