AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Bajaj, J.
While posted as revenue patwari in circle Bhagsar of Faridkot district of Punjab State during the years 19611972 petitioner Harjodh Singh is alleged to have tampered with/forged the revenue records to the advantage of a landowner for defrauding the surplus area authorities. The relevant details are obtaining in the statement of allegations dated, 10th April, 1989 issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 386/NSK2 dated 1241989 Annexure P3 Departmental enquiry has been initiated.
Besides its First Information Report No. 220 has also been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Sadar, Muktsar, district Faridkot in respect of the same lapses on the basis of letter. No. 4494/SRNSK11 dated 30.10.1989 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to SSP, Faridkot, under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Delinquent Patwari has filed Criminal Misc. No. 703M of 1990 for quashing the First Information Report and the departmental enquiry on the grounds of their, being inordinately delayed on account of the occurrence being of the year 1911. It is urged therein that prosecution is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the departmental enquiry is barred under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II.
I have heard Shri Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner, Sh. P.S. Sarna, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the relevant record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the observations made in Manohar Lal Sehgal v. The State of Punjab, 1990(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 414 and urged the prosecution in respect of the occurrence of 1971 in 1989 after 18 years is obviously violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, unconstitutional.
Again it has been urged with reference to the observations made in Des Raj Singal, Ex. Chief Engineer, Punjab v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 66 that prosecution of the petitioner for occurren of 1971 in 1989 more than 4 years from the date of cause of action or event mentioned therein is barred in terms of rule 2.2 (proviso 3) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and therefore, the departmental enquiry ordered against the petitioner for it should also be quashed.
Both the arguments aforesaid advanced on behalf of the petitioner have no merit therein. Entries in revenue record carry a presumption of correctness with them in terms of section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It is, therefore, necessary that the prosecution launched for tampering with such entries should see its legitimate end and the accusedpetitioner should be allowed to get the proceedings against himself quashed on account of inordinate delay in prosecuting him. Mangilal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, Judgments Today 1990(1) Supreme Court 74 is an authority for the view that in view of the nature of allegations and availability of evidence it is not expedient to terminate the proceedings. In the authority cited cases initiated against a public servant for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds had been pending for over 25 years still Hon''ble the Supreme Court only gave directions for their disposal within one year and did not quash the proceedings. Sanctity attaching to the revenue record is it a higher pedestal. The offence of tampering with/forging them attributed to the accused petitioner a revenue patwari should not, therefore, be allowed to be reduced to a mere farce by shortcircuiting the proceedings and giving them an unholy burial through their quashing; more so when the offence allegedly committed by the accused petitioner in 1971 came to be detected in 1989.
Regarding the quashing of enquiry proceedings, the view taken by this Court in Des Raj Singal, Ex. Chief Engineer v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 66 has been reversed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) RCR 139 : AIR 1989 Supreme Court 558. The relevant observations read, "Keeping in view of the scope of Article 309 as also the, purpose of Rule 2.2 the said rule cannot be interpreted to be a rule placing an embargo on prosecution of a Government servant on the expiry of a period of four years from the date of cause of action or event mentioned therein".
In this view of the matter the quashing petition is wholly without, merit and is accordingly dismissed.