Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AASAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRIN.SECY. REVENUE LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Aasan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Prin.secy. Revenue Lucknow And Others - WRIT - A No. 32940 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1123 (26 April 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32940 of 2005

Aasan Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and otherahcs

_________

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble G.P. Srivastva, J.

The petitioner has been suspended from service by the impugned order dated 14.12.2004, on several charges of misconduct. For example, the first charge is that while working as a Consolidation Officer he exceeded his jurisdiction and passed orders by which land of Gaon Sabha was recorded in the name of a private tenure holder thereby causing irreparable loss to the Gaon Sabha. There are several other similar misconducts alleged against the petitioner.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon a report dated 13th January 2004 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. This report does not deal with all the charges mentioned in the suspension order and the charge-sheet. Therefore, merely on the basis of this report, it cannot be held that the charges mentioned in the suspension order are not correct.

It is also not possible for this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to record findings of pure fact about the guilt or innocence of the petitioner with regard to each individual charge mentioned in the suspension order or the charge-sheet. Such findings will have to be recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence in the departmental enquiry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the orders passed by the petitioner which are the subject matter of the charges are quasi judicial orders and were either appealable or revisable and, therefore, no disciplinary proceedings could take place even if such orders are passed illegally, without jurisdiction, arbitrarily, whimsically or for extraneous consideration, and the errors could be corrected only in appeal or revision. The argument is misconceived and is not supported either by any logic or by any authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that section 49 A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would protect the petitioner in respect of the alleged misconducts. He relies upon a decision dated 28th July 1996 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim No. 451(1) / 1984 - Mohd. Iqbal Azmi Versus State of U.P. and another. There is an observation by the Tribunal in that decision that section 49 A would protect the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of the decision given under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This decision of the Tribunal was set-aside by the High Court and in appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and restored the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above observation of the Tribunal must be held to be law declared by the Supreme Court. The argument is misconceived. The decision of the Supreme Court is based upon a concession of counsel. Such decision does not amount to a precedent. Even otherwise restoration of the Tribunal's decision would mean restoration of its operative portion and it does not necessarily mean that every observation in every part of the Tribunal's judgment has been approved by the Supreme Court. Legally section 49 A is intended to protect and attach finality  to the rights of the parties in consolidation proceedings. That section is not meant for protection of misconduct on part of an officer of the Consolidation Department. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the said observation of the Tribunal.

In these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the suspension order. However, the departmental enquiry in contemplation of which the petitioner has been suspended may be concluded, subject to the petitioner's cooperation within two months of the date on which a certified copy of this order along with a self-attested copy of this writ petition is presented by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated: 26.4.2005

GNY/AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.