Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Haryana

Paramjeet Singh, J.—The instant proceedings arose from a Civil Writ Petition No. 3130 of 2012. While deciding the writ petition, this Court came across that two parallel proceedings for filling up the post of Lambardar on account of death of one Har Sahai of village Sagarpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh had been started by the Collector at the relevant time. Vide order dated 21.02.2012, this Court passed the following order:-

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court takes a suo motu notice of the fact that for filling up one vacancy of same village i.e. Sagarpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh caused on account of death of previous Lambardar, two parallel proceedings have been initiated. On the one side, on an appeal, the Commissioner vide order dated 24.08.2005 remanded the case of Jile Singh and Govardhan, with a direction to the District Collector to enquire into the allegations against the candidates and then pass fresh order. On the other hand, the Collector without complying with the order dated 24.08.2005 ordered for fresh proceedings for the appointment of Lambardar of the said village, which resulted into sorry state of affairs, indicating malfunctioning of the office of the District Collector, Mahendergarh at Namaul. The act of the District Collector prima facie appears to be not of responsible officer. It is also prima facie indicative of the fact that there is no coordination between the officials and record with regard to appointment of Lambardar village-wise and the record is not being maintained properly in the office of the District Collector which is required to be maintained for the purpose of smooth functioning.

In view of above, a notice is issued to the District Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, returnable for 23.04.2012 to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against the District Collector for creating the mess in filling up the post of Lambardar. The District Collector, Mahendergarh is directed to submit his reply to explain as to why fresh proceedings to fill up the post of Lambardar of Village Sagarpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh on account of death of Har Sahai, previous Lambardar were initiated when the earlier proceedings were still pending, which had not attained finality, before the next date of hearing.

In pursuance of show cause notice, the Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul, filed reply dated 17.04.2012, wherein it was stated that all the proceedings initiated by the then District Collector, Mahendergarh to fill up the vacant post of Lambardar village Sagarpur were according to law, as per natural justice and these were in consonance with the orders passed by the higher authorities. There was not a single moment on which two proceedings were going on parallel for the appointment of the said post by the District Collector, Narnaul.

This Court having not been satisfied with the reply, again asked the Collector to file specific affidavit of the officer who was the District Collector at the relevant point of time. The Collector filed affidavit dated 11.09.2012 and the relevant paragraph of the affidavit is reproduced as under:-

The incumbency period of the Collectors and Id. Commissioners concerned are as follows for ready reference of the Hon''ble Court:-

Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to Smt. Amneet P. Kumar and Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar, IAS. In pursuance of the show cause notice, Smt. Amneet P. Kumar filed her separate reply dated 26.11.2012 wherein it was stated that it was not in her knowledge that any appeal was pending and has also submitted that her predecessors had started proceedings in the matter. She had continued with those proceedings and also stated that there was not a single moment on which two proceedings were going parallel for the appointment of the said post at the time of passing of order dated 19.03.2008.

Sh. Pateh Singh Dagar, IAS (Retired) filed his reply and stated that the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division had remanded the case back to District Collector, Mahendergarh vide order dated 24.08.2005. The relevant para of the reply is as under:-

That the case of appointment of Lambardar of village Sagarpur was being heard in appeal by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division who remanded the case back to District Collector, Mahendergarh vide order dated 24.08.2005 with the following directions:-

Accepting the appeal of the appellant the case is remanded to the District Collector, Mahendergarh at Narnaul with the directions that after getting the above allegations enquired into, he should decide the case afresh on merit (translated).

It is most humbly submitted that deponent while working as Collector, in compliance of above orders of the Commissioner, Gurgaon got the allegations enquired into and found both candidates unfit as there was substance in the allegations against both the candidates. To select the best person, deponent passed orders dated 30.03.2006 for the appointment of Lambardar after initiating fresh process.

After defending his act by narrating various things, Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar has stated that he had taken due precautions to deliver justice in the case. Still, Mr. Phateh Singh Dagar tendered an unconditional apology for any mistake/error of judgment/wrong interpretations or any inadvertent mistake.

I have perused the record and heard Smt. Amneet P. Kumar, IAS as well as Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar, IAS (Retired).

Reply filed by the present Collector, as well as by Smt. Amneet P. Kumar and Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar are not satisfactory and cannot be accepted that at no point of time parallel proceedings were running.

It would be relevant to narrate the facts to clarify as to whether for filling up the same post of Lambardar, two proceedings were going on or not.

To fill up the vacancy caused due to death of Sh. Har Sahai on 13.08.2001, previous Lambardar of Village Sagarpur, the Collector, Narnaul gave permission on 14.02.2002 for filling up the post of Lambardar. In pursuance of that advertisement, Gowardhan son of Dalu Ram and Zile Singh son of Har Sahai (deceased Lambardar) applied for the post. The Assistant Collector Second Grade recommended the name of Gowardhan. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul recommended the name of Zile Singh. Thereafter, the Collector vide order dated 12.11.2003 appointed Zile Singh as Lambardar in place of Har Sahai. Appeal was preferred against the order of Collector. The Commissioner vide order dated 24.08.2005 remanded the case to the Collector with a direction to hear both the parties, get an inquiry conducted into the allegations of encroachment of shamilat and decide the case. In pursuance of remand order, Tehsildar, Narnaul submitted his report with regard to illegal encroachment by the brother of Zile Singh and a case under Sections 147, 148, 431 IPC was pending against Gowardhan. Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar, the then Collector, Narnaul, vide order dated 30.03.2006 held both the candidates ineligible and ordered fresh proceedings for filling up the post of Lambardar caused due to death of Har Sahai. Against that order, appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, who set aside the order dated 30.03.2006 vide order dated 29.04.2008 and held that new proceedings initiated by the Collector, Narnaul are faulty and directed to decide the matter after hearing both original applicants only. The said order is alleged to have been received by the Collector, Narnaul on 09.09.2008. It is pertinent to mention that in pursuance of order dated 30.03.2006 passed by Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar, fresh proceedings for appointment of Lambardar had been initiated, although appeal against order dated 30.03.2006 was pending before the Commissioner. Ultimately, in pursuance of order dated 30.03.2006, other persons, namely, Satyaveer Singh, Sukh Lal and Rajesh Kumar applied and thereafter, on 28.03.2007, the then Collector Sh. M.P. Bansal, IAS remanded the case to hear all the parties concerned and thereafter send the recommendation. Ultimately, the matter was decided by Smt. Amneet P. Kumar, IAS who ordered the appointment of Sh. Rajesh Kumar as Lambardar of Village Sagarpur.

From the above, it is very much clear that one order has been passed on 19.03.2008 whereby Rajesh Kumar was appointed as Lambardar. The said order was in pursuance of the proceedings initiated by Sh. Phateh Singh Dagar, IAS on 30.03.2006. Both the aforesaid orders were set aside by the Commissioner on 29.04.2008. It is a fact that order dated 30.03.2006 was under challenge in appeal before the Commissioner but the office was not aware of the said proceedings. It is strange enough that the matter remained pending before the authorities at the Collector level for sufficiently long time and the Collector had no knowledge as to whether the remand order had become final or not. As mentioned above, order dated 19.03.2008 was set aside by the then Commissioner Sh. Rajeev Sharma, IAS vide order dated 29.04.2008 and it was specifically held that the proceedings initiated by the Collector, Narnaul were faulty and the Collector had only to decide after hearing both the original applicants at first point of time in pursuance of the first proceedings. In these circumstances, this Court took suo motu notice.

Still in spite of this, the officers are saying that there was no parallel proceedings. The proceedings initiated in pursuance of the earlier order only became final with the passing of the order by the Financial Commissioner on 18.05.2011 wherein the order of Collector dated 30.03.2006 has been set side by the Commissioner and has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner as the same was challenged by Rajesh Kumar who had been appointed as Lambardar against the post of previous Lambardar Har Sahai. In the subsequent proceedings, Rajesh Kumar approached this Court in C.W.P. No. 3130 of 2012 in which these proceedings have arisen.

Perusal of Lambardari register and other record available with the authorities which were summoned by this Court, reveals that the office of the Collector is not making appropriate entries in the registers or the records when the Lambardar dies and when the fresh proceedings for filling up the said post on account of death, dismissal, resignation or otherwise are started and the result of those proceedings. It appears that there is no coordination between the hierarchy i.e. the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It also appears that the authorities are not keeping track of the proceedings initiated for filling up the post of Lambardar. It is the bounden duty of the Collector being an appointing authority that he must know when the proceedings are initiated and what is the ultimate result in those proceedings. A lack of coordination in the department has complicated the process and resulted into unnecessary litigation and delay in completion of task. The coordinate efforts of entire organization in the hierarchy starting from Financial Commissioner downwards, specifically in the revenue matters, to the lowest rung in the revenue hierarchy is the need of the hour. The revenue department requires a systematic integration of process from which it could become aware that at what stage the proceedings are going on. This integration of process is also a necessity in inter-departmental and intradepartmental proceedings, as well as in the revenue courts, appellate courts and the revisional courts. There should be a specific note with regard to the proceedings for filling up the post of Lambardar. As the Collector is the head of the department, he is responsible for all this. The subordinate officials/ministerial staff in the office of District Collector must make note with regard to the proceedings and the stage at which those are going on. The fresh proceedings should have been initiated only after verifying whether any proceeding in that relation are going on or not.

The facts of the present case clearly show that there is no coordination in the organization which is necessary to prevent further damage to the system. This not only affects the working of the department, it also results in the delay. Multiplicity of litigation unnecessary delay and complicate the proceedings.

Control and management of such mismanagement is a necessity and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana is directed to ensure that in future such like mistake does not occur. There should be proper maintenance of record so that stage of the on-going proceedings as well as the result of the earlier proceedings is clear and can easily and conveniently be ascertained as and when required. When a department does not support the coordinate efforts innovation and progress become stagnate within it, making the department obsolete and unable to compete. In the present age of advanced information technology, the information can be made available by a click, therefore there should be no difficulty in coordination of the activities. The appellate authorities/revisional authorities are also duty bound to inform the trial Court about the pendency of the proceedings. The situation of duplication of proceedings has happened in the present case because there is not enough coordination between the various departments and the officials are not taking proper care regarding proceedings in such like cases. Having considered the facts and the apology tendered by the officers, I do not want to propose any action. However, they are warned to be careful in future and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana is directed to take appropriate measures, so that such like situation does not occur in future.

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.