Bhuwan Prakash Tiwari v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and Ot hers

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i ) The Com m issioner Kum aon Division, Nainit al im posed penalt y of reduct ion t o a lower grade upon t he appellant , vide order dat ed 15.04.2014, for t he charge of derelict ion of dut y and act ing against t he int erest of t he St at e. Appellant challenged t he punishm ent order in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 752 of 2014, which was dism issed by learned Single Judge vide j udgm ent dat ed

16.11.2016. This int ra- Court Appeal is direct ed against t he said j udgm ent , rendered by learned Single Judge on 16.11.2016.

2. Relevant ext ract of t he im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below: - “ 3. One of t he argum ent raised by t he pet it ioner is t hat t he charges it self w ere fram ed by t he I nquiry Officer, and t herefore, t his could not have been done by t he I nquiry Officer as t his shows t hat t he inquiry it self was not free from bias. As far as t his argum ent of t he pet it ioner is concerned, t he sam e is wit hout any basis as t here is no specific pleading t hat t he charges which are referred above were fram ed by t he I nquiry Officer him self.

4. The fact of t he m at t er is t hat m erely if t he charges have been handed over by t he I nquiry Officer t o t he delinquent officer t hat it self w ould not am ount t o t he fact t hat t he charges have been fram ed by t he I nquiry Officer it self.

5. The second argum ent of t he pet it ioner is t hat it was not t he dut y of t he Reader t o get t he signat ures of t he concerned lawyers. I t is not m erely a quest ion of get t ing 1 signat ures of t he concerned lawyers, it is an adm it t ed fact t hat t he lawyers were not present on t he due dat e. Their signat ures are not on record. Moreover, t he relevant fact or is t hat t here was no order of t he Presiding Officer t o serve t he not ices by “ Dast i” , yet in order t o circum vent , not ices being sent t hrough proper channel t hrough t he Regist ry of t he office and t he orders were passed by t he Reader him self direct ing t he plaint iff t o serve not ices by “ Dast i” . This act on t he par t of t he Reader ensures t hat none of t he part ies i.e. A.D.G.C. or t he governm ent counsels were aware of t he not ices being served at t he relevant part ies.

6. Considering t he circum st ances, no int erference is being called for by t his Court . The writ pet it ion is w it hout any m erit and is hereby dism issed. ” t ot alit y of t he

3. I t is not in disput e t hat t he appellant was holding t he posit ion of Office Superint endent , and he was discharging dut ies as Reader in t he Court of Assist ant Collect or 1 st Class, Bazpur ( Udham Singh Nagar) . A Suit , under Sect ion 229- B of t he Ut t ar Pradesh Zam indari Abolit ion and Land Reform s Act , 1950, was filed by Kart ar Chand and ot hers against Nishant Singh and Ot hers, for declaring t hem as bhum idhar in respect of cert ain land; t he suit was num bered as Case No. 22/ 94, which was pending before t he Assist ant Collect or 1 st Class, Rudrapur and was t ransferred t o t he Court of Assist ant Collect or, I st Class, Bazpur, vide order dat ed 27.02.2013. The allegat ion against appellant was t hat he did not m ake

ent ry regarding not ice of t ransfer t o t he defendant s in t he dispat ch regist er, and he did not t ake care t o ensure t hat not ices are served upon all t he part ies; t here is no report regarding service upon St at e of Ut t arakhand, t hrough Collect or Udham Singh Nagar, in t he file; t here is not hing t o indicat e t hat Dist rict Governm ent Counsel ( Revenue) and t he counsel appearing for Municipal Corporat ion were present in t he Court on 23.03.2013, yet t heir presence was not ed even t hough t he order sheet do not bear t heir signat ure 2 Perusal of records reveals t hat Case No. 22/ 92 of 2012- 13 was decreed ex- part e by learned Assist ant Collect or- I Class, vide j udgm ent dat ed

30.03.2013. The Com m issioner, Kum aon Division has filed count er affidavit before learned Single Judge st at ing t hat aft er receiving t he record of Suit No. 22/ 92 of 2012- 13, on t ransfer from ot her Court , it was dut y of t he appellant t o ensure t hat sum m ons are served upon St at e of Ut t arakhand t hrough Collect or, and Dist rict Governm ent Counsel is inform ed about t ransfer of t he case, however, he failed t o do so and he also did not inform t he Presiding Officer of t he Court t hat t he not ice is not served upon t he defendant s; in t he order sheet , appellant wrongly m ent ioned t hat counsel Ut t arakhand St at e and Municipal Corporat ion are present , however, signat ures of t he counsels are nowhere t o be found in t he order sheet ; appellant did not ent er Case No. 22/ 92 of 2012- 13 in t he Case Diary for 23.03.2013, and he handed over dast i sum m ons t o t he plaint iffs in t he absence of any order by t he Presiding Officer; and aft er service of charge- sheet , he procured affidavit s from Harpal Singh and Harkewal Singh S/ o Jagir Singh ( plaint iffs t he Suit ) defending him self, which indicat es t hat he was act ing in collusion wit h plaint iffs in t he Suit . Annexure No. 5 t o t he Writ Pet it ion reveals t hat Harkewal Singh and Harpal Singh are plaint iff nos. 7 and 8 in Suit No. 22/ 92 of 2012- 13 which was decreed by Assist ant Collect or 1 st Class Bazpur on 30.03.2013.

4. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat learned Single Judge was not j ust ified dism issing t he writ pet it ion; appellant was not given reasonable opport unit y of defending him self and 3 I nquiry Officer was biased and his report was perverse.

5. Per cont ra, learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat disciplinary inquiry was held as per applicable rules and adequat e opport unit y of defending him self was given t o t he appellant ; t he I nquiry Officer found him guilt y, and based on findings recorded by I nquiry Officer, appellant was punished. He subm it s t hat disciplinary aut horit y t ook a lenient view in t he m at t er, or else t he nat ure and gravit y of charges would have warrant ed dism issal from service. He furt her subm it s t hat wit hout pet it ioner ’s help, Suit no. 22/ 92 of 2012- 13 could not have been decreed ex- part e. He subm it s t hat false ent ries were m ade by appellant in t he order sheet on 23.03.2013 and wit hin one week t hereaft er, t he Suit was decreed ex- part e.

6. We have gone t hrough t he im pugned j udgm ent . Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dism issing t he Writ Pet it ion. One of t he charge against appellant was t hat he m ade false ent ry in t he order sheet of Suit No. 22/ 92 of 2012- 13 for showing presence of counsels appearing for St at e and Municipal Corporat ion on 23.03.2013, and he also did not apprise t he Presiding Officer t hat service could not be affect ed upon all t he defendant s, especially on t he Dist rict Collect or and Municipal Corporat ion, and due t o act s of om ission and com m ission of t he appellant , t he Suit filed by t he plaint iffs was decreed ex- part e against t he St at e, and St at e land wort h several crore rupees had gone t o t he plaint iffs, who were declared bhum idhar over t he land involved in t he Suit .

7. Perusal of t he record reveals t hat t he land in quest ion was recorded in Cat egory 4, and bhum idari right s cannot be claim ed by an individual or group of 4 individuals in respect of Cat egory 4 land, as cont ended by learned St at e Counsel.

8. The cont ent ion raised by learned counsel for t he appellant , t hat principles of nat ural j ust ice were violat ed and inquiry was not held as per norm s, could not be subst ant iat ed by him . Charge- sheet was issued t o appellant cont aining t wo charges, t o which appellant replied and t hereaft er a disciplinary inquiry was held as per Rules in which appellant was given adequat e opport unit y of defending him self.

9. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for not int erfering wit h t he punishm ent order. Thus any int erference wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent would not be warrant ed. The Special Appeal t hus fails and is, accordingly, dism issed. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. __________________________ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 18 t h August , 2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A5 42D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF 5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 5