P P Yadav Dy.Mamlatdar(Recovery Officer) vs Collector & 1 Other(s)

A.S. Supehia, J

The present petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:

"A. admit and allow this petition;

B. issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.155 of 2002 and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.4.2002 passed by the respondent no.1 imposing penalty upon the petitioner and further be pleased to quash and set aside the chargesheet dated 29.7.2000 issued by the respondent no.1 herein and all subsequent orders passed in respect of the same;

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx"

The petitioner was issued a chargesheet by the District Collector, Bhavnagar on 29.07.2000 inter alia alleging that when he was working as a Circle Offier at Shihor, he had shown dereliction towards his duty by certifying entries No.1234, 1235, 1236 and 1237 in the Record of Rights of Village Bhutia, Taluka Shihor, District Bhavnagar without making proper scrutiny and thus, violated the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, more particularly, Rule 3(1).

2.1 A show-cause notice was issued on 27.03.2000. The petitioner filed his reply on 04.05.2000 and, thereafter, it appears that by the impugned order, after considering the defence statement of the petitioner, he has been imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar being Appeal No.155 of 2002 challenging the aforesaid order of penalty. By the judgment and order dated 21.03.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application being Review Application No.12 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2016.

Learned advocate Mr.Jani appearing for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the impugned order of penalty is required to be set aside since the author of the entries, i.e., the Talati was only reprimanded whereas, the petitioner, who had only certified the same, is severely penalized. Learned advocate Mr.Jani, while pointing out the disputed entries has submitted that they were mutated pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Bhavnagar on 07.09.1998 and no show-cause notice was also issued to him pursuant to whose orders, the aforesaid entries were certified by Talati and thereafter, verified by the present petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid issue, though was raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not considered these aspects in its true perspective and hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal, while supporting the judgment of the Tribunal has submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not require interference since the petitioner, who was serving as a Circle Officer, was required to verify the entries were noted by the Talati. He has submitted that the petitioner has shown dereliction of his duty and by not verifying the true aspects and hence, he has been imposed a major penalty of stoppage of one increment with future effect. He has submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the appeal and review application of the petitioner.

I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties as well as perused the impugned orders of the Tribunal.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been issued the chargesheet dated 29.07.2000 inter alia alleging as follows:

"Shri P.P. Yadav, Recovery Officer, when working as Circle Officer at Shihor has shown derelictionb of his duty by certifying entries No.1234, 1235, 1236 and 1237 in the Record of Rights of Village Bhutia (T. Shihor) without making a proper scrutiny and thus violated the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, more particularly, Rule 3(1)."

Thus, the allegation made against the petitioner is that he did not make appropriate scrutiny of the aforesaid entires. It has come on record that the concerned Talati had mutated the aforesaid entries pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 07.09.1998. The concerned Talati was issued the verbatim show-cause notice on 31.03.2000 / 04.04.2000 and by the order dated 01.07.2000, no penalty was imposed on him but he has been reprimanded. It is also an undisputed fact that no show-cause notice has been issued to the Assistant Collector who had passed the order dated 07.09.1998 pursuant to which such entries were affected. The Tribunal, while considering the aforesaid aspect, has concluded that the petitioner, since was serving as a Revenue Officer, he could have verified such entries.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid observation is erroneous since the Tribunal should have considered the aspect that the aforesaid entries were made by the Talati on the order of the Assistant Collector and the petitioner has supervised the aforesaid entries. No punishment order has been passed against the Talati and he has been only reprimanded whereas, no show-cause notice was also issued to the Assistant Collector, who has passed the order dated 07.09.1998.

In this view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal suffers from non-application of mind and the same is quashed and set aside. The impugned order of penalty is also set aside. The respondents are directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner by passing the appropriate orders; his pay shall be accordingly re-fixed. Rule made absolute.

The orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.