Patna High Court
Sweta Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17506 of 2024
======================================================
Sweta Mishra, aged about 33 years (female), Daughter of Sri Dinesh Kumar
Mishra, Resident of G-1,105, Sector-Govindan Kalindipuram, Rajrooppur,
Allahabad. P.S.-Dhumanganj, District-Allahabad, U.P. at present posted as
D.C.L.R., Arrah Town, District-Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department. Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna
5. The Special Work Officer, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna
6. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (08)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 23-01-2025
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Pathak, learned counsel
along with Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (08)
appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
2/20
is reproduced hereinafter:-
"That this application by petitioner, is
preferred invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble court for issuance of an appropriate
writ/ order/ direction setting aside the
Resolution dated 17/10/2024, issued under
memo no.16788, by Respondent no.4, whereby
and whereunder decision has been taken for
initiating a departmental proceeding against
Petitioner under Rule 17(2) of Bihar
Government Servant (classification, control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005, for charges alleged
on frivolous and illegal complain made by a
litigant after passing of order, whose case has
been decided by this petitioner in accordance
with law against said complainant and for
grant of any other suitable relief/reliefs for
which petitioner is found entitled in the eye of
law."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner
at the time, she was posted as Deputy Collector Land Revenue
(DCLR) at Ara, District, Bhojpur, was directed by the District
Magistrate, Ara, Bhojpur, to conduct an inquiry in respect of
alleged allegation made against the Circle Officer by one
Archana Pandey, whose Mutation Case No. 3674 R27/2023-24
3675 R27/2023-24, 3676 R27/2023-24, 3678 R27/2023-24 and
3679 R27/2023-24 was pending before the said Circle Officer.
The petitioner, after conducting the enquiry, had submitted the
report contained in letter no.1152 dated 16.11.2023 before the
District Magistrate, Ara. The Circle Officer had passed an order
dated 21.09.2023 in aforesaid Mutation Cases filed by the said
complainant Archana Pandey and thereafter, Mutation appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
3/20
no. 267, 268, 269, 270 and 271 of 2023-24 was preferred
against the order dated 21.09.2023 before the petitioner, who
was the DCLR. Upon adjudication, the petitioner, who was the
District Collector-cum-Land Reforms Officer, Ara, Bhojpur,
passed the order dated 29.06.2024 in connection with above
appeals, which was dismissed observing that Title Suit No. 758
of 2021 is pending between the parties and the appeals are
barred as per the provisions of Clause 12 of Section 6 of the
Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act, 2011'). Thereafter, Archana Pandey having lost her case
had filed a complaint against the petitioner on 09.07.2024.
Based on the allegation contained in the complaint petition, the
petitioner was served a show cause dated 25.07.2024. The
petitioner, denying the charges, had filed her reply to the show
cause on 31.07.2024. The respondent no.2 (Additional Chief
Secretary) vide letter no.126 dated 26.07.2024 having found the
allegation prima facie to be true, recommended for not giving
any charge of revenue office and directed to transfer the
petitioner. A disciplinary action was initiated against the
petitioner by seeking show-cause vide letter no.3506 dated
27.08.2024
. A show cause was submitted by the petitioner on
30.09.2024 denying all the charges. Thereafter, vide resolution
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
4/20
dated 17.10.2024 it was communicated to the petitioner, that a
decision was taken for initiating a departmental proceeding as
per the Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (herein after
referred to as CCA Rules, 2005) containing charges in Prapatra
Ka. It is the case of the petitioner that the charges as alleged in
the charge memo don’t constitute any misconduct, therefore, the
charge memo loses its force. The resolution dated 17.10.2024
(Annexure- P/8) containing the Charge Memo is fit to be set
aside and quashed.
Submissions on behalf of the parties:-
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that with an intention to harass the
petitioner and on the basis of frivolous complaint petition of one
Archana Pandey, firstly vide Letter dated 25/07/2024
(Annexure- P-3), an explanation was sought on certain
allegations leveled against the petitioner, and thereafter on
recommendation made by authorities of Revenue and Land
Reforms Department for same charges, the General
Administration Department, vide letter dated 27.08.2024, sought
a show cause from the petitioner, pursuant to which the
petitioner filed a reply on 31.07.2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
5/20
5. Learned Counsel submitted that without
considering the show cause submitted by the petitioner, it was
communicated to the petitioner, vide Resolution dated
17/10/2024, that a decision was taken for initiating a
departmental proceeding against Petitioner under Rule 17(2) of
Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Resolution dated 17/10/2024 was issued without considering the
grounds raised by the petitioner that the charges do not
constitute any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Learned
counsel proceeded to submit, firstly that the allegation of
demand of bribe of Rs.5 lakh for allowing the appeal is not
sustainable in want of any evidence in this regard, and the
allegation being made after passing of the order dated
29.06.2024 by the petitioner. The second allegation also has no
leg to stand on the ground that the petitioner had passed an order
in all the appeal cases no. 267, 268, 269, 270, and 271 of 2023-
24 dated 29.06.2024 and in want of any evidence that the date
was fixed on 09.04.2024 the question of preponing the date do
not arise. In respect of charge no.3, learned counsel submitted
that in written statement the petitioner had already clarified that
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
6/20
due to inadvertent typing mistake, the records were sent by her
office to Udwantnagar Circle in place of Ara, which was
subsequently rectified by the petitioner vide order dated
01.07.2024, much prior to the complaint petition dated
09.07.2024. Similarly, learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2023 had already clarified to
the Collector that due to typing mistake instead of Title Suit
no.785 of 2021, Title Suit No.758 of 2021 has been typed and
Title Suit no.785 of 2021 is the subject matter of the appeal
which has been adjudicated by the petitioner, and relates to the
same piece of land in dispute, which is barred under Clause 12
of Section 6 of the Act, 2011.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the
office of the petitioner was at ground floor and is easily
accessible by the public and she had no knowledge of any
outsider working there on the first floor. One alleged person,
namely Chandrashekhar Pathak, was seen for the first time in
the office of the petitioner and it was possible that the
complainant namely Ranjit Kumar Singh, husband of the
complainant, had planted him in the office for making false
allegation, just to harass the petitioner. On these grounds,
learned counsel submitted that the charges, as alleged against
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
7/20
the petitioner, have no leg to stand and once the very foundation
falls, further proceeding is unwarranted. On these grounds the
petitioner has sought quashing of the resolution dated
17.10.2024. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review
may set-aside the resolution dated 17.10.2024 issued under
Memo no. 16788.
8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents no. 1, 3, and 5 submitted that the
petitioner, without giving notice to the parties concerned,
prepond the date of hearing of the appeals and rejected all the
mutation appeals by an Ex-parte order dated 29.06.2024.
Learned counsel further submitted that during the raid at the
office of the petitioner, it was found that many of the retired
persons and outsiders were working in the office of the
petitioner, which shows misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
The learned counsel further submitted that all those personnels
were arrested and FIR against those persons were registered.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority found the allegations reported against the
petitioner to be unbecoming of a Government Servant and the
departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner cannot
be interfered at the threshold and the writ petition deserves to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
8/20
dismissed.
Analysis and Conclusion:-
10. Heard the parties.
11. Having considered the rival submissions made
on behalf of the parties and having given thoughtful
consideration to the charges, as contained in the charge memo, I
find that the main question, which falls for consideration before
this Court is, as to whether, the allegations, which has been
levelled against the petitioner constitutes misconduct on the part
of the petitioner?
12. The word misconduct has been defined in
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, which runs as under:
“Misconduct means, misconduct arising
from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of
judgment, or innocent mistake, do not
constitute such misconduct”.
13. To analyze as to whether the Charge memo
(Annexure-3) served to the petitioner vide letter dated
25.07.2024 constitute misconduct, the same is reproduced inter
alia, hereinafter:
¼2½ f}rh; Hkkx & vopkj ;k dnkpkj ds ykaNuksa dk
lkj
1- Jherh “osrk feJk] Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgÙkkZ] vkjk lnj ds
fo:) ifjoknh Jherh vpZuk ik.Ms;] ifr & Jh jathr dqekj flag }kjk
Jhefr “osrk feJk] Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgÙkkZ] vkjk lnj ds fo:)
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
9/20vihyokn la[;k& 267] 268] 269] 270] 271] lu~ 2023&24 dh Lohd`fr
gsrq ₹ 5-00 yk[k #i;s ekax fd;s tkus dh f”kdk;r dh x;h gSA
2- Jherh “osrk feJk }kjk mi;qZDr nkf[ky&[kkfjt vihyokn
la[;k& 267] 268] 269] 270] 271] lu~ 2023&24 dh lquokbZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr
frfFk& 09-07-2024 dks fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds Preponed dj fnukd & 29-
06-2024 dks lquokbZ dj lHkh vihyoknksa dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA
3- Jherh “osrk feJk] Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgÙkkZ] vkjk lnj ds
U;k;ky; esa nk;j nkf[ky&[kkfjt vihyokn la[;k& 267] 268] 269] 270]
271] esa fnukad 29-06-2024 dks lHkh vihyoknksa dks [kkfjt djrs gq, vkns”k
esa fy[kkx;k gS fd fuEu U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k vkns”k dh Nk;kizfr ds
lkFk vapykf/kdkjh] mnoaruxj dks okil Hkstsa] tcfd vihyokn
vapykf/kdkjh] lnj vkjk ds vkns”k ds fo:) nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA
4- Jhefr feJk us vius vkns”k fnukad & 29-06-2024 esa ikuk dqaoj]
ifr&Lo0 jkeyk;d flag ls izkIr vkifÙk ds vkyksd esa mYys[k fd;kgS fd
LoRooknla0& 758@2021 pyjgk gS rFkk vihy vkosnd }kjk dksbZ
dkxtkr@lk{; nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS] tcfd Jherh feJk us gh vius
i=kad&1152@Hkw0lq0] fnukad&16-11-2023 esa lekgÙkkZ] Hkkstiqj dks fy[kk gS
fd vkifÙkdrkZ }kjk ftl [kkrk&[ksljk ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA nkf[ky&[kkfjt
gsrq vkosnu ekStk&dkSf”kd nqykjiqj dh Hkwfe ds fy, fn;k x;k Fkk] tcfd
LoRookn la[;k 758@2021 ekStk fiijfg;ka ls lacaf/kr gSA
mi;qZDr ls Li’V gS fd Jhefr feJk }kjk ljdkjh dk;ksZa esa
ykijokgh] dÙkZO;ghurk ,oa LosPNkpkfjrk cjrh x;h gSA mDr d`R; ljdkjh
dehZ ds vkpj.k ds fo:) gS] tks fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh]
1976 ds fu;e&3 dk mYya?ku gSA
g0@&
¼t; flag½
lfpo
jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkxA
14. Section 3 of Bihar Government Servant
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
10/20Conduct Rules, 1976 (as amended up to date), deals with regard
to conduct of Government employees, during service period. It
has been alleged by the petitioner that before the charge was
framed against the petitioner, the issuing Authority has not
conducted any preliminary enquiry, which is necessary to be
conducted prior to framing of Charge. Therefore, for holding the
petitioner guilty under section 3 of Bihar Government Servant
Conduct Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Conduct Rules,
1976”) only on the basis of a complaint made by a litigant, is
against the statutory provisions contained therein.
15. It is no doubt that it is a settled principle of law
that a charge memo can be challenged on the limited grounds
and the judicial review against the charge memo is to be
exercised cautiously. The writ petition against the charge memo
can be entertained, if the same has been issued by an
incompetent authority, having no jurisdiction or an allegation of
malafide is raised or if the same is in violation of the statutory
rules in force. And in this regard, I find it apt to place reliance
on the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh,
reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357, wherein in paragraph 6, the court
has held as follows:
“6.In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary
inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on
the charges framed (read with imputation or
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
11/20particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or
other irregularity alleged can be said to have been
made out or the charges framed are contrary to any
law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to
go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The
tribunal cannot take over the functions of the
disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the
charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to
go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to
court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look
into the truth of the charges or into the correctness
of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority as the case may be. The
function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial
review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid
down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote
the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi
Nath & Sons. The Bench comprising M.N.
Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M.
Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p.
317, para 8) “Judicial review, it is trite, is not
directed against the decision but is confined to the
decision-making process. Judicial review cannot
extend to the examination of the correctness or
reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The
purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure
that the authority after according fair treatment
reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to
decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of
the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in which the
decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that
the Court sits in judgment not only on the
correctness of the decision making process but also
on the correctness of the decision itself.”
16. In Pandit D Aher v. State of Maharashtra, reported
in 2007 (1) SCC 437, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph
19, held as follows:
“19. It is now well settled that a judicial review
would lie even if there is an error of law apparent
on the face of the record. If statutory authority uses
its power in a manner not provided for in the statute
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
12/20or passes an order without application of mind,
judicial review would be maintainable. Even an
error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the
principles of judicial review.”
17. The said proposition was reiterated by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. Pramod Kumar,
IPS & Anr. reported in 2018 (17) SCC 677. It is also apt to
extract the relevant portion from the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, which reads as under:-
“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this
Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge
sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer,
Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar
Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special
Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and
others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and
others 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of UP vs. Brahm
datt Sharma and another. AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should
not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice
or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition
may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet
or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause
of action, because it does not amount to an adverse
order which affects the rights of any party unless the
same has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after
considering the reply to the show-cause notice or
after holding an enquiry the authority concerned
may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the
charges are not established. It is well settled that a
writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A
mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not
infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final
order imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
13/20party can be said to have any grievance.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In the case of Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court further held that if a charge-sheet is challenged
on the ground of delay in initiation of Disciplinary Proceeding
or delay in concluding the proceeding considering the gravity of
charge on the ground of delay and quashed the charge-sheet.
Paragraph no. 8 of the aforementioned judgment would be
relevant to reproduce hereinafter:
“8. Law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a
routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any
grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the
issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision
of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-
sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground
of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay
in concluding the proceedings, the court/ tribunal may
quash the charge- sheet after considering the gravity of
the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case
weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent
employee and must reach the conclusion which is just
and proper in the circumstance.
19. The challenge to the charge memo solely on the
basis that the same is against the rules prescribed under CCA
rules was considered by the Apex Court and it was held in case
of T. Ramamoorthy v The Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna
Vidyalaya High School, etc. & Others reported in 1998 Writ.
LR 641 that when a statute contemplates a thing to be done in a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
14/20
prescribed manner, the same has to be done, in the manner as
provided under law. In Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment, it
has been held as follows:
“6. If the statutory provision enacted by the
Legislature prescribed a particular mode for
terminating the service or dismissing the
teaching or a non-teaching staff of a school, it
can and has to be done not only in that manner
alone, but it cannot be done in any manner too.
This principle that where a power is given to do a
certain thing in a certain way, things must be
done in that way and not otherwise and that the
other method of performance is necessarily
precluded, is not only well settled, but squarely
applies to this case also in construing the scope
of the power as also its exercise by the
management under Section 22 of the Act.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. H. C. Goel, reported in 1964 AIR 364/1964
SCR (4) 718, in which, it has been held that if the Government
Servant is able to make out his case that ultimately the
departmental proceeding held to be based on no evidence and
perverse and suffers from obvious patent error the same should
fall:
“It still remains to be considered whether the
respondent is not right when he contends that in the
circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the
Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is
a Conclusion which is perverse and, therefore,
suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the
face of the record that the High Court would be
justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions
filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or
otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2), the
High Court under Art. 226 has Jurisdiction to
enquire whether the conclusion of the Government
on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
15/20not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that
the order of dismissal which may be passed against
a Government servant found guilty of misconduct,
can be described as an administrative order;
nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a
public servant under the statutory rules to determine
whether he is guilty of the charge framed against
him are in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings
and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari,
for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if
he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate
conclusion of the Government in the said
proceedings which is the basis of his dismissal is
based on no evidence. In fact, in fairness to the
learned Attorney- General, we ought to add that he
did not seriously dispute this, position in law…..”
21. The question now arises whether the petitioner,
who in exercise of her quasi judicial power had dismissed all
the Mutation Appeals filed on behalf of the complainant, namely
Archana Pandey, in accordance with the provision of Section
6(12) of the Act, 2011 can be held liable for any misconduct and
she can be proceeded for the said reason on the basis of
complaint and the disciplinary action taken against the authority
can be said to be without any basis in light of the recorded
evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as,
the charge memo contained in ‘Prapatra-K’, any action to be
taken in furtherance of a Resolution dated17.10.2024 contained
in Memo 16788 for holding the petitioner to have committed
misconduct under Section 3 of the Conduct Rules, 1976.
22. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab
vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors reported in (2011) 14
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
16/20
SCC 770, held that since the foundation of initiation of
departmental proceeding and its conduct have been shown to be
entirely illegal, the foundation has to be necessarily removed,
the same is reproduced hereinafter –
“……sublato fundamento cadit opus”
meaning thereby that foundation being removed,
structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on
all scores in the present case……”;
“Since the foundation of initiation of
the departmental proceeding and its conduct have
been shown to be entirely illegal, the foundation has
to be necessarily removed, as a result of which the
structure/work of punishment given to this writ
petitioner stood, is bound to fall.”
23. Thus the law is well settled in respect of
holding charge-sheet or show cause notice doesn’t give rise to
any cause of action because it doesn’t amount to an adverse
order, which affects the right of any party, however, at the same
time, the Apex Court in the case of Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal
India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 142 held that the charge memo cannot be issued
in a casual or routine manner and the disciplinary authority is
required to apply his mind before its issuance. In the aforesaid
case the legal maxim “sub lato fundamento cadit opus” has
been referred and it has been held that, where initial action is
not in consonance with law subsequent proceeding would not
sanctify the same. However, in light of the law laid down by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
17/20
Apex Court in the case of Bhullar (supra), I don’t want to
interfere in any manner.
24. The facts reveal that the Mutation Appeals have
been dismissed by the petitioner preferred by Ms. Pandey being
barred under Section 6 (12) of the Act, 2011, which provides
that “Mutation of a holding or part thereof shall not be allowed
in cases in which Title suit with regard to that holding or part
thereof is pending in the competent court.” It has been mandated
under Section 6 (11) of said Act that “Mutation claimed on the
basis of partition other than by the court or registered deed, shall
not be allowed unless there is consent of partition by all the co-
sharers. The records reveal that the Title Suit no.785 of 2021
relates to same piece of land, which are the subject matter of
mutation appeals. Section 6 (12) of the Act, 2011, is reproduced
hereinafter:
“Section 6(12): Mutation of a
holding or a part thereof shall not be allowed in
cases in which Title Suit with regard to that holding
or a part thereof is pending in the competent court.”
25. Charge against the petitioner is firstly that the
petitioner had demanded bribe of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs for allowing
the Appeals filed by appellant, but there is no evidence except
the allegation made by the complainant/appellant. The second
allegation has been alleged that the petitioner had prepond the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
18/20
date, regarding which it is evident from order sheet of Appeals
that no date as alleged was fixed on 09/07/2024 in the Appeal
Nos. 267, 268, 269, 270, and 271 of 2023-24 nor there was any
evidence otherwise in this regard. It has thirdly been alleged that
the petitioner had sent the records of the cases to the Office of
Circle Officer, Udwant Nagar in place of Ara. In this regard, it
has been clarified by the petitioner that the word Ara can only
said to be a typing error which was corrected by the petitioner
vide order dated 01/07/2024, that is much prior to the allegation
made in the complaint petition dated 09.07.2024. In view of the
explanation, it cannot be said to be a case of interpolation or
preponing the date fixed in the proceeding. It has fourthly been
alleged about the difference between the statement made by the
petitioner in the enquiry report contained in letter dated
16.11.2023 submitted before the Collector, Bhojpur and her
order dated 29.06.2024. The petitioner in her show cause has
specifically stated and clarified that it is a typing mistake and
instead of T.S. no. 785/2021, 758/2021 has been typed and T.S.
No. 785/2021 is related to the land in dispute in the aforesaid
Appeals. I find that charges contained in Memo No. 1257 dated
25.07.2024 against the petitioner on the basis of allegation don’t
constitute misconduct as defined under the Bihar Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
19/20
Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 and the same calls for interference
by this Court in view of her explanation given in her show-
cause and also in view of the bar created by the Section 6(12) of
the Act, 2011.
26. I find that the Appeals filed by the complainant
was dismissed by the petitioner in discharge of her quasi
judicial power. The complainant instead of filing an application
before the Collector/ Additional Collector within 30 days for
approval or revision of the order in aforesaid mutation appeals
under Section 9 of Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (as amended
upto date) has preferred the present writ petition.
27. In the present case, it can be said that the very
foundation of allegations don’t constitute misconduct and in
light of law laid down in Davindra Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors
(Supra), any further proceeding cannot be sustained in the eye
of law.
28. In view of the above facts and circumstances
and discussions made hereinabove, as well as, in light of the
aforementioned judgments, the Resolution contained in Memo
No. 16788 dated 17.10.2024, decision of the Disciplinary
Authority for initiating Departmental Proceeding, is hereby set
aside and quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17506 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
20/20
29. The authorities are required to take corrective
measures in accordance with law.
30. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
31. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Purnendu Singh, J.)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 20.12.2024 Uploading Date 23.01.2025 Transmission Date N/A