The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6684 of 2023 -------- Sahdeo Mehra, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Ram Krishna Mehra, Resident of Argora, P.O., P.S. Argora& District Ranchi. Versus .......Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. The Secretary, Department Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Ground Floor, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi; of 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Ground Floor, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi; 4. The Inspector General Registration, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. --------- .......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State 08/Dated:-14.08.2024 --------- : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr.Adv. Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Adv. : Ms. Divya, A.C. to S.C.-III ---------
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide letter no. 1584 dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure-13). Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the enquiry report dated 03.02.2017 in view of the fact that the said enquiry report clearly goes to show that the entire case is a case of no evidence as none of the documents produced in the said departmental proceeding has either been proved or established by any officer of the department bringing the entire proceeding conducted against the petitioner in teeth of the ratio and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. 3. The brief facts of the case as indicated in the writ application are that the petitioner was appointed as District Sub-Registrar in the office of Registry, Ranchi on 28.05.2007. Against this petitioner, eight Praptra K have been issued, mainly for registering lands in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land. The details of eight Praptra K are as under: I. Praptra K vide resolution no. 1328 dated 14.10.2014 was issued, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally and wrongly registered a total of 135.69 decimals of land in the name of M/s SanjeevaniBuildcomProvate Limited without checking the documents relating to title of land etc. (A-1/Pg. 45). In pursuance of the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. II. Thereafter, the petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 680 dated 26.06.2015, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no. 9508 dated 01.06.2007, document no. 9509 dated 01.06.2007, document no. 9511 dated 01.06.2007 etc. without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land etc. (A-2/Pg.48). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. III. The petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 681 dated 26.06.2015, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no. 20603/10 dated 14.09.2010, document no. 20604/10 dated 14.09.2010 etc. without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land etc. (A-3/Pg.79). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. IV. Thereafter, the petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 682 dated 26.06.2015, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no. 11395 dated 14.05.2010 and document no. 4755 dated 08.03.2010 without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land. (A- 4/Pg.83). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. V. The petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 938 dated 2 15.07.2015 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no. 11265 dated 18.05.2011 and document no. 11267 dated 18.05.2011 without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land (A-5/Pg.85). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. VI. The petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 939 dated 15.07.2015 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no.31684/27068 dated 16.12.2011, document no. 31273/26718 dated 14.12.2011 etc. without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land. (A-6/Pg.87). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. VII. The petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 940 dated 15.07.2015 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no. 16391, 16408, 16410, 16412, 16414 dated 15.07.2011 and document no. 23447 dated 22.10.2011 without checking the documents as it did not contain proper description of the land. (A-7/Pg.88). In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply. VIII. The petitioner was again issued a Paptra K vide resolution no. 1185 dated 11.09.2015 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner has illegally, wrongly and in contravention of section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has registered lands pertaining to document no. 6520 dated 25.03.2010 and document no. 6004 dated 18.03.2011 without checking the documents relating to title of the land. (A-8/Pg. 90). 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajit Kumar, ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid charges, the respondent State authorities conducted an enquiry and accordingly an enquiry report dated 03.02.2017 was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The 8 charges were clubbed into five charges.Subsequent thereto, the respondent State without considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid charges, issued letter no. 9 dated 03.12.2019 stating therein that a decision has been taken to withhold three increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. The petitioner was directed to submit his reply on the imposition of aforesaid punishment within a specified time. 3 The petitioner vide letter No.77 dated 17.02.2020 submitted his reply stating that none of charges are made out against him as he has not violated any of the provisions of either the Registration Act, 1908 or the Rules relating thereto;however, without considering his reply, the respondent No.3 issued a notification contained in memo No.1584 dated 08.07.2020, wherein it has been stated that the respondent authorities after considering all the facts and circumstances and including the reply of the petitioner decided to impose a major penalty of withholding three increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. 5. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that this is a case of no evidence, inasmuch as, neither any document has been proved, nor any witness has been examined in order to prove the charge. From the enquiry report, especially page 112, it appears that the enquiry officer has based his opinion on the basis of a report of one government pleader who has not even been examined in this case and now, as per the settled principle, when there is no document proved before the proceedings nor any oral evidence has been adduced, it becomes a case of no evidence. 6. Lastly, Ld. Sr. counsel further submits that since the petitioner has already retired and it is a case of no evidence, then no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the matter back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry.He contended that after going through the impugned order it can be easily inferred that the same is without any finding whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority has simply noted down the submission of the petitioner, the opinion of the enquiry officer and passed order. There is no independent mind applied by him which is against the settled proposition of law. 4 7. Learned counsel for the respondent tries to defend the impugned order relying upon the counter affidavit; however, he could not dispute the fact that no witness has ben examined in order to prove the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record especially, the charge-sheet and the enquiry report, it appears that the documents have not been proved by any oral witness and the enquiry officer has based his report on the basis of an opinion of the Government pleader. In crux, the documents which was before the enquiry officer, has not been proved by any oral evidence. In the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 579, it has been categorically held in para 14 and 15 as under: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” Emphasis Supplied. 9. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it appears that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. In the instant case, the evidence collected and produced before the enquiry officer has not been proved by any 5 oral evidence. The said law has been reiterated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein it has been re-asserted by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even in the case of ex parte proceeding, the department will have to prove the documents placed before the enquiry officer. In the case at hand, though several documents were part and parcel of the enquiry proceeding, but no oral evidence has been laid down as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex court; as such there is no veracity of the same. As stated hereinabove, the enquiry officer has based his opinion on the basis of a report of one government pleader who has also not been examined in this case. 10. After going through the impugned order, it further transpires that there is no reasoning given in the impugned order of punishment. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority has simply noted down the submission of the petitioner, the opinion of the enquiry officer and passed the impugned order, therefore, he himself has not applied his mind. Thus, the instant case; on the one hand, it is a case of no evidence as none of the documents have been proved by any oral evidence and on the other hand; the impugned order of punishment is without any reasoning as stated hereinabove. As a matter of fact, the entire impugned order which consists of six paragraphs and in first five paragraphs, the facts has been written and in sixth paragraph, it has only been said that after going through the documents, the disciplinary authority is of the view that the petitioner has not taken any new point; as such, he imposed punishment. Not even a single line reasoning has been given by the disciplinary authority; as such, this itself is bad in law in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fishries Private Limited v. Union of Indiaand Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 6 “40. In Kranti Associates this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below: (SCC pp. 510-12) "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision- maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision- making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi- judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (1) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions'. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'." Emphasis Supplied 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide letter No. 1584 dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure-13), is hereby, quashed and set aside. 12. Normally, in the cases where there is a procedural lapse, the case should have been remanded from the stage of 7 procedural irregularity; however, in the instant case the petitioner is a retired senior citizen and looking to the nature of punishment and the allegation, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the matter back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry giving an opportunity to the department for second inning; as such, accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. vikas/- AFR (Deepak Roshan, J.) 8