Mutating Private Names Over Govt Land Amounts To Creating 'Parallel Revenue Documents': Patna HC Upholds Dismissal Of Clerk
The Patna High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Revenue Clerk accused of mutating names of private persons over government land, observing that the misconduct amounted to creation of “parallel revenue documents” inconsistent with official revenue records.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge order dismissing the appellant's writ petition against disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
The appellant, who was working as a Revenue Clerk, faced allegations that he had mutated names of certain private individuals in respect of government land. A departmental inquiry was conducted, following which he was found guilty after being afforded an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to him, and upon considering his reply, the District Magistrate, Motihari passed an order dismissing him from service.
The appellant's statutory appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed, following which he approached the High Court. The Single Judge rejected the challenge, holding that there was no procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that he had earlier complained against illegal mutations allegedly carried out by the Circle Officer and that the disciplinary action was initiated because of his complaint against superior officers. He further argued that his reply to the show cause notice had not been properly considered and that the proceedings violated Rule 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. It was also argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and not in conformity with Rule 14 of the Rules.
The State, however, submitted that the appellant had been found guilty of serious misconduct after a full-fledged inquiry and had been granted ample opportunity of hearing.
Upon examining the record, the High Court observed that the Inquiry Officer had dealt with the allegations in detail and concluded that the appellant had committed serious misconduct by mutating private names in respect of government land. The Court further noted that the appellant had been granted sufficient opportunity under the applicable rules and that both the disciplinary authority and appellate authority had passed detailed and reasoned orders.
Rejecting the plea of violation of natural justice, the Court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any procedural illegality or violation of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.
On the question of proportionality of punishment, the Bench observed:
“The appellant who himself is custodian of all types of Revenue Records, cannot take such an untenable plea that he was not aware about the nature of land sought for mutation.”
The Court further held:
“The proved service misconduct of the appellant amounts to creating a parallel revenue document, inconsistent with the original revenue records.”
Holding that the penalty of dismissal did not warrant interference on the ground of proportionality, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. It also reiterated that the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited and found no perversity or illegality in the Single Judge's order.
Case Title: Dinbandhu Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 826 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4903 of 2023.
Appearance: Mr. Bishwajeet Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Kurshid Alam and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Dwivedi for the State.