Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The learned AGP would support the order. He would try to impress upon us that the vigilance was conducted and the committee has recorded the reasons by taking a plausible view. In the absence of corroborating evidence, the committee could not have relied upon the validity of Virendra and the petition be dismissed.

4 WP / 6876 / 2024

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the papers.

10. At the outset, it is necessary to note that admittedly, in the vigilance enquiry, the revenue record of Chhagansinh Lalsinh and Hirasinh Lalsinh was collected and the vigilance officer had not doubted these individuals being related to the petitioner by blood. It appears that subsequently, a fresh enquiry was ordered in respect of this revenue record and the vigilance officer mentioned in the report that the relationship could not be established between the petitioner and these individuals on the basis of revenue record which was of Fasli period of the pre-constitutional time and which was in Modi script of which translation was collected.

11. Irrespective of the observation of the committee and that of the vigilance officer in the subsequent report, we have been made available the original file of validity holder - Virendra. Incidentally, he was also relying upon the same revenue record. It was in Modi script and its translated copies are also available therein wherein these individuals have been described as 'Rajput Bhamta'.

12. The genealogy produced by the petitioner and the one filed by Virendra in his own matter and again filed in the present petition together with his affidavit, clearly demonstrate the relationship not only between him and the petitioner but also would demonstrate these very 5 WP / 6876 / 2024 individuals whose Fasli record is being relied upon, as the ancestors of both of them i.e. petitioner and Virendra.