Ranbir Singh vs The Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Counsel for the parties are agreed that the main case be taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner was recruited as a revenue Patwari in the year 1973. While working as Patwari, Halqa Lohari, in the year 1983, it was alleged that he gave a wrong report regarding the domicile of one Jagjit Singh. He also entered a false report showing him as the owner of the land. Resultantly, the petitioner facilitated the issue of a false domicile certificate. He was consequently charge-sheeted. After an enquiry, the Collector vide his order dated November, 19, 1986, ordered his removal from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. It was dismissed vide order dated May 5, 1987. Undaunted, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Rule 13 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules), 1987, before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The Collector vide his order dated September 28, 1987, ordered that the revision petition shall be withheld as no fresh ground had been mentioned. In pursuance of this order, the office of the Financial Commissioner informed the petitioner that there was no "need to call for the record for passing further orders in the matter" as the revision petition has been withheld by the Collector, Karnal. The petitioner has challenged the order of his removal from service as also the consequential orders passed by different authorities. However, at the hearing, Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that if the order passed by the Collector withholding the revision petition of the petitioner is set aside, he would raise all the points as urged in this petition before the Financial Commissioner. He consequently prays that the order dated September 28, 1987, and the consequential communication from the Financial Commissioner, copies of which are as Annexures P-8 and P-10 with the writ petition, be set aside.

Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned counsel for the respondents, contests the claim made by the petitioner.

The relevant provision is contained in Rule 18 which provides as under :-

"18. Withholding appeals or applications for revision.(1) An appeal or application for revision may be withheld by the head of the office, if -

(a) it is an appeal or application for revision in a case in which under these rules, no appeal or application for revision lies; or

(b) it does not comply with the provisions of Rule 17, or

(c) it is an appeal and is not preferred within forty-five days after the date on which the appellant was informed of the order appealed against, and no reasonable cause is shown for the delay; or

(d) it is a repetition of a previous appeal or application for revision and is made to the same appellate or revisionary authority by which such appeal or application for revision has been decided and no new facts or circumstances are adduced which afford ground for a reconsideration of the case :

Provided that in every case in which an appeal or application for revision is withheld, the appellant or applicant shall be informed of the fact and the reasons for it and a copy thereof forwarded to the appellate authority, if any, together with a copy of the appeal or application for revision so withheld;

Provided further that an appeal or application for revision withhold on account only of failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 17 may be re-submitted at any time within one month of the date on which the appellant or applicant has been informed of the withholding of the appeal; or application, and if re-submitted in a form which complies with those provisions shall not be withheld.

(2) Any appellate or revisional authority may call for the record of any appeal or application for revision withheld by an authority subordinate to it, which under these rules may be made to it and may pass such order thereon as it considers fit."

A perusal of the above provision shows that the head of the office can withhold a revision petition only if one of the four grounds as enumerated in this provision is fulfilled. In the present case, it is the admitted position that there is no provision under which the filing of the revision may be barred. It has also not been shown that the revision petition filed by the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Rule 17. It is also not suggested that it has not been filed within 45 days as is required under clause (c). Still further, the only observation made by the Collector was that "no fresh ground has been mentioned in the revision petition." However, this was not enough. The provision requires that not only the petition should be a repetition but should also have been "made to the same appellate or revisionary authority by which such appeal or application has been decided............" Admittedly, this was not, so. The petitioner''s appeal had been decided by the Commissioner. He had filed the j revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel for the ] respondents is unable to refer to any provision under which the petitioner may be debarred from approaching the State Government or the Financial Commissioner.

In view of the above, the action of the Collector is withholding the revision petition cannot be sustained. The impugned order passed by him on September 28, 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition, is consequently set aside. Resultantly, even the subsequent order/communication passed by the Financial Commissioner on November 13, 1987, cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. The Financial Commissioner is directed to decide the petitioner''s revision petition on merits. Keeping in view the facts that the case has been pending in this Court since 1988, the revision petition be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within 6 months.

In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.