Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Even during the general examination, the CO himself has admitted that the orders of the Hon'ble High Court were for recording possession of the person for cultivating the land. He even sought further clarifications/orders of the SDM and SDM in turn simply directed the CO, the then Tehsildar (Najafgarh), to implement the orders of the High Court. During general examination, when questioned 'as per the judgment dated 14.8.2001, the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents i.e. Revenue Deptt. to record the possession of the person who is cultivating the fields at the spot in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, whereas the Assami rights have been conferred on the petitioner by way of entering name in O-4 register. Does it mean that you have conferred more rights than the High Court orders by exceeding his competency?', the CO replied in the negative and further added that he simply passed the orders to the Subordinate staff to implement the orders of the Hon'ble High Court/SDM/RA in Revenue records through O-4 register. Thus it is clear that the CO himself had ordered to make entries in O-4 register. He has further admitted during general examination that in O-4 register only mutation orders issued by Tehsildar on account of sale, purchase, lease, mortgage, successor in undisputed cases and in addition, mutation orders issued by SDM/RA in disputed cases are made. On questioning as to whether the orders of Hon'ble High Court were to record entries for physical possession of cultivators or for the legal title/Assami in the revenue records, the C.O. confirmed that orders of the Hon'ble High Court were for recording the possession of the person who was cultivating the land.
FINDINGS It was imperative and rather a legal duty of the CO Shri C.L. Bawalia, being then Tehsildar (Najafgarh) and having sufficient experience i.e. Naib Tehsildar (Najafgarh) for 1-1/2 years and Tehsildar (Najafgarh) for about 2 years and 8 months, he must have known the procedure and the legal requirements and entries to be made in revenue records like O-4 register, P-4, P-5, P-5A etc. He himself has admitted in general examination that entries relating to only mutation orders issued by Tehsildar on account of sale, purchase, lease, mortgage, successor in undisputed cases and in addition, mutation, orders issued by SDM/RA in disputed cases are made in O-4 register. The P.O. has stated in his brief that the cultivatory possession are entered only in P-5 and P-5A forms and not in O-4 register and this statement of the P.O. has not been contested by the C.O. in his brief or otherwise, which means that whatever the PO has stated about entries to be made in P-5 and P-5A is correct. The C.O., in his brief, has simply tried to shift the blame on lower functionaries, forgetting his own orders dated 20.11.2001 for making entries in O-4 register. Thus, it is established that entries relating to cultivatory possession are not made in O-4 register, but in P-5 and P-5A forms. Thus it can be very easily inferred that C.O. has willfully committed irregularities in implementing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Thus amply exhibits irresponsibility and sheer disregard of the law and directions/observations of the higher authority i.e. SDM/RA and gross misconduct and malafides on the part of the C.O., Shri C.L. Bawalia.
Thus, the charge stands fully proved beyond any doubt.

3. The aforesaid when represented to by applicant culminated into a penalty order with the following observations:

On a dispassionate examination of the inquiry report and the documents placed on record I find that none of the arguments put forward by the Charged Officer hold water. The inquiry officer has taken into account the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-3 that O-4 register is used for making entries pertaining to mutation of land and for implementing orders of the High Court recording 'assami' etc. The inquiry officer has also relied upon exhibit P-1 and exhibit P-2 and Charged Officer's note dated 20/11/2002 for proof against him. The charged officer has rebutted none of these documents or the orders. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the inquiry officer has properly assessed the evidence placed on record and then arrived at a considered conclusion. Further, it is not possible to accept the argument of the Charged Officer that he had only directed his staff to make entries in O-4 register and never asked them to mention the petitioner as 'assami/bhumidhar'. Even, if we accept his argument, it still does not explain why he did not obey the orders of the SDM/RA and filled up form P-4 and called for objections from Gaon Sabha? The correct procedure for him would have been to follow the orders of the SDM/RA and not do anything on his own which was against any rule or provision of law. So the defence of the Charged Officer that he never asked his staff to enter the name of the petitioner as 'assami' is not relevant to the issue under consideration. For the same reason, I feel that his argument about having issued orders for the entries to be struck down cannot be accepted. Implicit in this argument is his admission that it was wrong to enter petitioner as 'assami' in O-4 register. To seek to correct a wrong that was perpetrated because of his own action does not help his cause. Because asking the revenue assistant to enter entries in O-4 register was tantamount to insubordination and blatant violation of law. I, therefore, feel that the article of charge against Sh. C.L. Bawalia, Grade-I, DASS have been proved on the basis of documents placed on record and preponderance of probability. He has failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thereby contravened Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.