# Randhir Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 884
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-06
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6129 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/randhir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49545
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 -
Petitioner, while serving as Additional District
Magistrate was also given additional charge as
Assistant Custodian under Act, 1950 - During
his tenure, complaint was made by one of
resident
regarding
auction,
inquiry
was
ordered by Commissioner and joint team
comprising Additional Commissioner (Judicial)
and Additional Commissioner (Administration)
submitted
report
highlighting
technical
irregularities in auction process - Respondent
passed
impugned
punishment
order,
dismissing writ petitioner from service - Issue
before Court was whether there had been any
infraction of rules with regard to conducting
inquiry with respect of imposition of major
punishment - Whether there has been strict
compliance of provisions of Rule 7 of Rules,
1999 - Once delinquent denies charges, it is
incumbent
upon
prosecution
to
prove
allegations made in charge sheet - Since no
such exercise undertaken, impugned order
legally unsustainable - Petitioner was not
given opportunity for oral hearing post charge
sheet, in violation of Rule 7 of Rules,1999 and
considering his suspension and subsequent
retirement, inquiry is to recommence from
stage of charge sheet issuance within time
bound period - Impugned order, set aside.
(Para 3, 7, 23 to 45)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 81,261. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"There is always peril in treating the
words of a speech or a judgment as though
they were words in a legislative enactment,
and it is to be remembered that judicial
utterances are made in the setting of the
facts of a particular case."

11. There are a few other observations
in Kewal Krishan Puri case [(1980) 1 SCC
416] to which apply with the same force all
that we have said above. It is needless to
repeat the oft-quoted truism of Lord
Halsbury that a case is only an authority
for what it actually decides and not for
what may seem to follow logically from it."

17. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order
impugned dated 25.10.2021 passed by
Superintendent of Police is hereby quashed.
The respondents are directed to accord
positive consideration to the candidature of
the petitioner and offer him appointment if
otherwise there is no legal impediment. The
appointment, however, shall abide by the
outcome of criminal case which is going on
against the petitioner in connection with Case
Crime No.591 of 2015.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 884
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 6129 of 2018

Randhir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Anuj Srivastava, In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Yadav

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 -
Petitioner, while serving as Additional District
Magistrate was also given additional charge as
Assistant Custodian under Act, 1950 - During
his tenure, complaint was made by one of
resident
regarding
auction,
inquiry
was
ordered by Commissioner and joint team
comprising Additional Commissioner (Judicial)
and Additional Commissioner (Administration)
submitted
report
highlighting
technical
irregularities in auction process - Respondent
passed
impugned
punishment
order,
dismissing writ petitioner from service - Issue
before Court was whether there had been any
infraction of rules with regard to conducting
inquiry with respect of imposition of major
punishment - Whether there has been strict
compliance of provisions of Rule 7 of Rules,
1999 - Once delinquent denies charges, it is
incumbent
upon
prosecution
to
prove
allegations made in charge sheet - Since no
such exercise undertaken, impugned order
legally unsustainable - Petitioner was not
given opportunity for oral hearing post charge
sheet, in violation of Rule 7 of Rules,1999 and
considering his suspension and subsequent
retirement, inquiry is to recommence from
stage of charge sheet issuance within time
bound period - Impugned order, set aside.
(Para 3, 7, 23 to 45)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank &
ors.(2009) 2 SCC 570, (Paras 14, 23)

2. St. of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar
Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772, (Paras 26 to 30)

3. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. 2014 (105) ALR
377, (Paras 8, 9, 11)

4. Ram Gopal Lodhi Vs St. of U.P. 2023 (8) ADJ
246, (Paras 11, 13)

5. C/M Muslim Inter College & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., Special Appeal No. 716 of 2022, decided
on
16.12.2022,
(Para
28)
10 All. Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Randhir Singh Duhan,
the petitioner in person as well as Sri
Neeraj
Tripathi,
learned
Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri D.K.
Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents.

2. The case of the writ petitioner as
worded in the present writ petition is that
he had served in Indian Army and
participated in operation "Hifazat" in
Manipur & Nagaland and operation "Blue
Star" in Punjab for which he was awarded
with prestigious gallantry award, "Sainya
Sewa Medal." However, owing to disability
on medical grounds he was discharged
from the Indian Army. The writ petitioner
further claims to be possessed of Degree of
Masters of Arts in English, Political
Science, Defence Studies as well as B.Ed.,
Ph.D, PG Diploma in Human Rights and
Mass Communication followed by LL.B
and LL.M from reputed University. Post
discharge from Indian Army, the writ
petitioner claims to have joined U.P. Civil
Services (PCS, Executive Branch) and was
assigned the work of establishing newly
created Districts, Rudrapur (Uttaranchal),
Gautam Buddh Nagar (NOIDA), Shamli
Tehsil Modi Nagar and Shikarpur. The writ
petitioner further claims to have executed
projects
of
construction
of
National
Highway from Muzaffarnagar to Haridwar,
Dedicated Freight Railway Corridor from
Muzaffarnagar to Haryana Border, Power
Grid Station and GAIL Pipeline Project in
Western U.P.

3. While the writ petitioner was
posted as Additional District Magistrate,
Prabuddhnagar, now known as Shamli, he
was assigned additional charge of Assistant
Custodian
under
the
provisions
of
Administration of Evacuee Property Act,
1950 by the orders of the Competent
Authority so specified therein. With
relation to auctioning of 7 Khasras
admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of 11
Khasras
admeasuring
27.819
hectares
situate at Village Bidauli Tehsil Karana,
District Prabuddhnagar, a complaint was
lodged by one of the resident of Village
Bdauli,
Tehsil
Karana,
District
Prabuddhnagar (at present Shamli). An
inquiry was conducted under the orders of
Commissioner Shaharanpur through a joint
team
of
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial) and Additional Commissioner
(Administration) who tendered a inquiry
report on 01.05.2012 noticing irregularities
in conduction of auction of the evacuee
property.

4. As per the writ petitioner, despite
the fact that there was no allegation pin
pointed against the writ petitioner in the
capacity
of
Additional
District
Magistrate/Assistant Custodian under the
provisions of Administration of Evacuee
Property
Act,
1950,
the
Secretary/Commissioner,
Board
of
Revenue issued a fresh direction to the
District Magistrate, Shamli to hold a fresh
inquiry regarding the auction proceedings.
The District Magistrate, Shamli by virtue of
a
communication
dated
16.05.2013
addressed
to
the
Commissioner,
Shaharanpur Region, Shaharanpur apprised
him that already an inquiry had been
conducted on 01.05.2012, thus, there is no
occasion to conduct fresh inquiry in the
matter. Thereafter, the Commissioner and
the Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow by virtue of the letter dated
12.06.2014 issued a direction to District
Magistrate, Shamli to submit report along
with the recommendations with regard to
the guilty officers/employees after fixing
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their responsibilities in the matter of
auction
of the
land of
7
Khasras
admeasuring 27.112 hectares out of the
land of 11 Khasras admeasuring 27.819
hectares, Village Bidauli, Tehsil Karana,
District Prabuddhnagar. In pursuance of the
direction
of
the
Commissioner
and
Secretary,
Board
of
Revenue,
U.P.,
Lucknow dated 12.06.2014 the District
Magistrate,
Shamli
vide
letter
dated
13.06.2014 apprised that the auction
proceedings were conducted by the then
Naib Tehsildar, Sri Srawan Kumar Rathor
and the then Additional District Magistrate
(F & R), the petitioner. Subsequently, as
per the writ petitioner on 21.07.2014 the
Commissioner and Secretary, Board of
Revenue, Lucknow addressed a letter to the
Chief Secretary, Appointment Anubhag-2,
Lucknow pointing out the irregularities
alleged to have been committed by the writ
petitioner in that regard. According to the
writ
petitioner,
thereafter,
a
charge
memorandum was served upon the writ
petitioner dated 26.08.2014 containing as
many as two charges. The first charge
levelled upon the writ petitioner was that
while he was posted as Additional District
Magistrate (F & R), Assistant Custodian,
he conducted auction of the said properties
despite the fact that there had been repeal
of Administration of Evacuee Property Act,
1950 in the year 2005 itself. The second
charge levelled upon the writ petitioner was
to the extent that the auction was conducted
de hors the well settled norms which even
in fact caused huge losses to the State
Government.

5. The writ petitioner on the receipt of
the
charge
sheet
dated
26.08.2014
thereafter
tendered
his
objection
on
30.04.2015 before the Chief Secretary,
Appointment Anubhag-2, U.P. Shasan,
Lucknow setting out the case that the
departmental
proceedings
cannot
be
initiated against him as with regard to the
auctions which had been conducted as they
stood settled in favour of the highest
bidders and post cancellation of the said
bids, the highest bidders preferred writ
proceedings in Miscellaneous Single No.
6908 of 2014 (Suresh Kumar & 14 Others
Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Board of
Revenue U.P. & Others) in which on
05.11.2014 an interim order of status quo
has been passed and since the issue
involved in the said writ petition pertains to
holding of auction and settlement of bids in
the capacity of an Additional District
Magistrate/Assistant Custodian and the
same has been made the basis of the
charges levelled in the charge sheet, thus,
the enquiry proceedings be stalled till the
disposal of the writ petition pending before
the Court.

6. It is further the case of the writ
petitioner that one Sri Tazveer Zafar Ali,
Commissioner Shaharanpur Mandal was
appointed
as
Inquiry
Officer,
who
proceeded to conduct the ex parte enquiry
and tendered
his inquiry
report
on
11.06.2015
before
the
Disciplinary
Authority holding the two charges levelled
against the writ petitioner proved. On the
receipt
of
the
inquiry
report
dated
11.06.2015 the writ petitioner preferred its
objection taking a stand that none of the
charges stood proved against him and the
enquiry proceedings was illegal as it was
not open to conduct inquiry in the wake of
the fact that the issue in question which
was subject matter of inquiry proceedings
is engaging attention in the pending writ
petition.

7. However, according to the writ
petitioner, the Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of U.P., first respondent has
10 All. Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
887
proceeded
to
pass
the
impugned
punishment
order
dated
23.10.2017
whereby the writ petitioner has been
dismissed from services.

8. Questioning the order dated
23.10.2017 passed by the first respondent,
Additional Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow,
the writ petitioner has preferred the present
writ petition.

9. The writ petition was entertained
by this Court on 20.02.2018 while seeking
response from the respondents. A counter
affidavit has been filed by the State
respondents sworn by the Joint Secretary,
Appointment Department, Government of
U.P. dated 16.07.2018 to which a rejoinder
affidavit has been filed. A supplementary
affidavit has also been filed which is also
responded by the respondents.

10. As per the writ petitioner who had
appeared in person, he against the order
dated 23.10.2017 dispensing with his
services preferred a review/revision before
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary
(Appointment),
U.P.,
Lucknow
on
06.12.2017 which came to be rejected on
03.11.2022. An amendment application
was preferred challenging the order dated
03.11.2022 passed by the first respondent
in review/revision which has also been
allowed.

11. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan,
petitioner in person submits that the order
dated 23.10.2017 and 03.11.2022 passed by
the first respondent, Additional Chief
Secretary, U.P., Lucknow cannot be
sustained for a single moment particularly
in view of the fact that the entire inquiry
proceedings
alleged
to
have
been
conducted by the respondents is in
violation of principles of natural justice as
no
departmental
inquiry
worth
consideration has been conducted before
imposing the extreme punishment of
dismissal of the services of the writ
petitioner. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan,
petitioner in person has sought to contend
that the writ petitioner herein is a
Government Servant being the member of
the U.P. Civil Services (PCS, Executive
Branch), thus, for conduction of the inquiry
there exists a complete set of rules by the
name and style of U.P. Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999. According to Sri Randhir Singh
Duhan, petitioner in person the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been enacted
under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and a complete
procedure is contemplated for holding
departmental inquiry in case of major
penalties. He refers to Section 7 of the 1999
Rules so as to contend that in the matter of
imposition of major penalty, it is incumbent
upon the Disciplinary Authority to not only
issue and serve a charge sheet containing
the allegation sought to be levelled but post
appointment of an Inquiry Officer date,
time and venue is to be fixed for holding
oral inquiry so as to enable the delinquent
to appear before the Inquiry Officer in
order to cross examine the witnesses who
are the authors of the documents which
have been put to service to bring home the
charge.

12. Submission of Sri Randhir Singh
Duhan petitioner in person is that in the
present case though a charge memorandum
was served upon the writ petitioner dated
26.08.2014 containing two charges and the
writ petitioner submitted its objection
regarding
conduction
of
the
inquiry
proceedings on 30.04.2015 on the premise
that since with relation to the allegations of
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
holding of auctions of the demised
properties the highest bidders have already
preferred writ petition being Misc. Single
No. 6908 of 2014 (Suresh Kumar & 14
Others Vs. Commissioner and Secretary,
Board of Revenue U.P. & Others) in which
an order of status quo had been passed on
05.11.2014 and the matter is sub-judice, the
inquiry be stalled till the disposal of the
said proceedings, but without passing any
order on the objection raised by the writ
petitioner on 30.04.2015, the Inquiry
Officer conducted the ex parte inquiry
without fixing the time, date and venue and
proceeded to hold the writ petitioner guilty
without giving him sufficient opportunity
to cross examine not only the material
witnesses but also to put forward his stand.
He, thus, submits that the impugned
punishment order be set aside.

13. Sri Randhir Singh Duhan,
petitioner in person has sought to rely upon
the judgments in the case of Roop Singh
Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others
(2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010
(2) SCC 772, Kaptan Singh Vs. State of
U.P. 2014 (105) ALR 377, Ram Gopal
Lodhi Vs. State of U.P. 2023 (8) ADJ 246.

14. On merits the petitioner in person
has submitted that it is not a case wherein
the writ petitioner had proceeded with the
auction on his wishes as the entire
proceedings for conducting auction was as
per the dictates, approvals and the orders
passed by the Superior Authorities. In order
to substantiate the same Sri Randhir Singh
Duhan, petitioner in person has sought to
argue
that
on
21.02.2012
a
notification/advertisement/gazette
was
issued by the Collector, Shamli for the sale
of total 11 plots situate in 6 or 7 villages of
the district in the Village Bidauli, Tehsil
Karana, District Shamli. The date of the
auction was fixed on 25.02.2012 and the
same
was
published
in
National
Newspapers as well as local edition.
According to the writ petitioner the general
public was informed also through the
Village
Pradhan,
Block
Development
Officers, Executive Officers/Nagar Palika
that the auction was to be held on
25.02.2012. Even newspaper/advertisement
publication was made on 23.02.2012 in
local newspaper "Punjab Kesari" and
widely circulated newspaper "Hindustan".
As per the writ petitioner large number of
persons
participated
in
the
auction
conducted on 25.02.2012 as various bids
was submitted in the aforesaid auction. On
02.03.2012 the District Magistrate issued a
communication to the petitioner that since
on the date of the auction, the Model Code
of Conduct was in operation, therefore,
certain persons were unable to carry large
amount of money in order to present their
bids
in
the
auction
scheduled
on
25.02.2012, thus, another opportunity be
afforded to the bidders while fixing auction
on a subsequent date. As per the writ
petitioner, he thereafter issued notices to
the unauthorized occupants in possession of
the plots in question on 02.03.2012 itself
and directed them to be present and deposit
their money in cash or bank draft on
09.03.2012 at 3:00 P.M. It is further the
case of the writ petitioner that on
07.03.2012
the
District
Magistrate
addressed
a
communication
to
the
Commissioner, Shaharanpur bringing to its
knowledge the fact that the auction
proceedings were held on 25.02.2012 and
on the basis of the certain representations
made by the persons who were unable to
participate in the aforesaid auction a fresh
auction date had been fixed on 09.03.2012
granting opportunity to the general public
including the unauthorized occupants to
10 All. Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
889
deposit money on any working day either
by cash or bank draft.

15. It is further the case of the writ
petitioner that the District Magistrate,
Shaharanpur on 07.03.2012 issued a
communication
to
the
Commissioner,
Shaharanpur
Region,
Shaharanpur
apprising the fact that on 04.03.2012 a
fresh advertisement was published in
newspaper (Dainik Jagran) apprising the
general public about the holding of the
auction on 09.03.2012. It has been further
pleaded that the fresh auction was held on
09.03.2012 and all the plots in auction
fetched price at the rate of Rs. 17.01 lacs
per hectare and Rs. 21 lacs per hectare
respectively against the market value of
Rs. 16 lacs fixed by the Collector,
Shamli. So much so, according to the writ
petitioner,
the
aforesaid
auction
proceedings was brought to the attention
of the Commissioner, Shaharanpur by the
District Magistrate, Shamli through its
report dated 09.03.2012 and the District
Magistrate accorded its approval to the
said auction proceedings on 13.03.2012
and ultimately on approval/sanction of
the Collector, Shamli, the writ petitioner
issued a sale letter/sale certificate to the
successful bidders on 16.03.2012 in that
regard.

16. In a nutshell, the submission of
the petitioner in person is that there have
been compliance of each and every
provision of law for holding auction and
further
approval/sanction
has
been
accorded by the Competent Authority in
the hierarchy and it was within the
knowledge of the functionaries of the State
Government that the auction is being
conducted.
Submission
is
that
the
impugned orders cannot be sustained even
on merits also.

17. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned
Additional Advocate General who appears
for
the
official
respondents
while
countering the submission of the petitioner
in person has sought to argue that the
orders which are being subject matter of
challenge needs no interference in the
present proceedings. He submits that post
issuance and service of the charge sheet
dated 26.08.2014 the writ petitioner did not
submit his reply to the charge sheet and
rather to the contrary he attempted to evade
the departmental proceedings on the pretext
that the matter is sub-judice and pending
before the Writ Court. Submission of the
learned Additional Advocate General is
that the issue which is engaging attention in
the pending writ petition is completely
different as the Writ Court was occasioned
to consider the rights of the highest bidder
whose claims have been found to be
successful in the bid, however, the
departmental proceedings initiated against
the writ petitioner is regarding the
misconduct committed by him while posted
as Additional District Magistrate/Assistant
Custodian. Submission is that once the writ
petitioner avoided participation in inquiry
and did not give its reply to the charge
sheet then no fault whatsoever can be
attributed upon either the Inquiry Officer or
Disciplinary Authority.

18. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned
Additional
Advocate
General
further
submits that the charges levelled upon the
writ petitioner are grave and serious in
nature and they exposed the writ petitioner
for the extreme penalty of dismissal from
services as despite being aware about the
fact that the provisions of the Evacuee
Property Act, 1950 stood repealed then to
the writ petitioner had proceeded with the
auction which cannot be said to be an act of
innocence as the writ petitioner being the
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
member of the Civil Services is supposed
to act in conformity with law and cannot
plead ignorance of law.

19. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned
Additional
Advocate
General
further
submits that the entire auction has been
tailored in such a manner so as to confer
benefit to particular bidders and the writ
petitioner has conducted the said auction in
such a manner so as to cause loss to the
State Government.

20. In rejoinder, the petitioner in
person has argued that, in case, the
Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry
Officer was not satisfied with the stand
taken by the writ petitioner as recited in the
objection/letter dated 30.04.2015 then at
least the writ petitioner could have been
apprised and informed to be present on a
particular date for holding inquiry in that
regard. He further submits that a valuable
right to appear in the inquiry proceedings
and to set forth his stand and to substantiate
the fact that he is innocent has been
deprived with.

21. Before venturing into the tenability of
the arguments of the rival parties, it would
be apposite to notice the relevant statutory
provisions of law as well as the documents
which are germane for deciding the issue
in question.

Charge sheet dated 26.08.2014:

उत्तर प्रिेश शासन

मनयुमक्त अनुभाग-2

सिंख्या 2670(1)/ िो-2-2014-22(95)/ 93

लखनऊः मिनािंक 26 अगस्त, 2014

आरोप पत्र

श्री रणिीर मसिंह िुहण, पी०सी०एस०

तत्का० अपर मजलामिकारी (मव/रा), प्रबुद्धनगर (शािली)

सम्प्रमत मनलमम्बत एविं सम्बद्ध

राजस्व पररषि, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

अपर मजलामिकारी (मव/रा), प्रबुद्धनगर (शािली) के पि पर
तैनाती के िौरान की गई गम्भीर अमनयमितताओिं के मलए एति्द्वारा
आपको मनम्नवत आरोमपत मकया जाता हैः-

आरोप सिं०-1

आप द्वारा सहायक सिंरक्षक ( मनष्क्रान्द्त सम्पमत्त) की हैमसयत
से मि०- 25.2.2012 को िाि मबडौली, तहसील कैराना, मजला
प्रबुद्धनगर की 11 खसरों की 27.819 हे० भूमि िें से 7 खसरों
की 27.112 हे० भूमि की नीलािी सम्पन्द्न की गयी जबमक
मनष्क्रान्द्त सम्पमत्त से सम्बमन्द्ित भारत सरकार के ररपील एक्र्-
2005 के पश्चात सभी पि स्वतः सिाप्त हो गये। उक्त सम्पमत्त के
नीलािी से पूवा शासन/ पररषि से िागािशान मलये मबना मविान सभा
सािान्द्य मनवााचन 2012 की अमिसूचना प्रभावी रहने के िौरान
मजला स्तर पर प्रकरण मवशेष िें मिये गये िागािशान को कूर्रमचत ढिंग
से अपनी सुमविानुसार प्रयोग कर क्षेत्रामिकार से बाहर जाकर
मनष्क्रान्द्त/शत्रु सम्पमत्त का मवक्रय मकया गया।

साक्ष्य

उक्त आरोप के सम्बन्द्ि िें मनम्न साक्ष्य पठनीय हैः-

1- आयुक्त, सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर के पत्र सिं०333/आर०ए०-1, मि०- 3.5.2012 द्वारा प्रेमषत जािंच

आख्या।

2- मजलामिकारी, शािली का पत्र सिं०- 564/राजस्व
सहायक /2014-15, मि०- 13.6.2014

3- शासनािेश सिं०-79/1/78(13) राजस्व-7, मि०-
22.7.1979

4- पररषि पत्र सिं०- 95/8-मन०सिं०-6/2006, मि०-
7.4.2006

5- पररषि पत्र सिं०- 147/8-मन०सिं०-14/93, मि०-
7.4.2006

6- पररषि पत्र सिं०- 333/8-मन०सिं०- 14/93, मि०-
8.12.2006

आरोप सिं०-2

आप द्वारा नीलािी िें प्रमक्रयात्िक अमनयमितता करते हुए
मनयि मवरूद्ध तरीके से बहुत कि सिय के प्रचार-प्रसार िें नीलािी
10 All. Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
891
की कायावाही सम्पन्द्न करायी गयी मजससे कि बोली पर नीलाि
स्वीकृमत से शासकीय िन की हामन हुई।

साक्ष्य-

उक्त आरोप के सम्बन्द्ि िे मनम्न साक्ष्य पठनीय हैः-

1- आयुक्त सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर के पत्र सिं०333/आर०ए०-1, मिनािंक 3.5.2012 द्वारा प्रेमषत जािंच
आख्या।

आपसे अपेक्षा की जाती है मक आप मिनािंक तक अपने
बचाव पक्ष िें आरोप का मलमखत उत्तर जािंच अमिकारी के सिक्ष
प्रस्तुत करें। यमि उक्त मनिााररत अवमि के अन्द्िर आपका उत्तर प्राप्त
नहीं होता है तो यह सिझा जायेगा मक इस सिंबिंि िें आपको कुछ
नहीं कहना है और तिनुसार एकतरफा कायावाही करके आिेश पाररत
कर मिये जायेगें।

आपसे यह भी अपेक्षा की जाती है मक यमि आप अपने
बचाव िें कोई गवाह या साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं अर्थवा मकसी
साक्षी का परीक्षण/ प्रमतपरीक्षण करना चाहते हैं तो ऐसे गवाह का
नाि एविं पता तर्था ऐसे मबन्द्िुओिं का मववरण मजसके आिार पर
परीक्षण/ प्रमतपरीक्षण मकया जाना हो, अपने उत्तर िें अिंमकत करें।

अनुिोमित श्री राययपाल की ओर से,

(राजीव कुिार)

प्रिुख
समचव
जािंच अमिकारी।

मनयुमक्त मवभाग,

उत्तर प्रिेश शासन।

Reply/objection
of
the
writ
petitioner to the charge sheet dated
29.12.2014:

प्रेषकः

रणिीर मसिंह िुहन,

पी०सी०एस०

बी-7 ए०डी०एि, कम्पाउन्द्ड

बरेली।

सेवा
िें
ह० अप०

आयुक्त/जािंच अमिकारी, आयुक्त

सहारनपुर। सहारनपुर िण्डल सहारनपुर

1.1.15

पत्रािंक 522 मिनािंक 29,मिसम्बर 2014

मवषय शासन द्वारा मनगात आरोप पत्र का उत्तर मिये जाने के
सम्बन्द्ि िे।

िहोिय,

कृपया उपयुाक्त मवषयक अिोहस्ताक्षरी के पत्र सिंख्या
793(1-2) मिनािंक17,10.2014 का सन्द्िभा िहण करने का
कष्ट करें। उक्त पत्र के द्वारा अपना मलमखत उत्तर प्रस्तुत मकये जाने हेतु
अिोहस्ताक्षरी को मनम्न साक्ष्य पठनीय हेतु चाहे र्थे। मनम्न पठनीय
साक्ष्य अभी तक अिोहस्ताक्षरी को अभी तक उपलब्ि नही कराये
गये है, मजसके कारण अिोहस्ताक्षरी आरोप पत्र का उत्तर प्रस्तुत नहीं
कर सका है।

अतः मनवेिन है मक आरोप पत्र का उत्तर मिये जाने हेतु मनम्न
साक्ष्य कृपया उपलब्ि कराने हेतु तर्था उत्तर मिये जाने की सियसीिा िें वृमद्ध करने का कष्ट करें। पठनीय साक्ष्य कृपया िेरे मिये पते
पर प्रेमषत मकये जाने का कष्ट करें।

1- आयुक्त सहारनपुर िण्डल सहारनपुर के पत्र सिंख्या
333/आर०ए०-1 मिनािंक 03.05.2012 द्वारा प्रेमषत जािंच
आख्या।

2- मजलामिकारी, शािली का पत्र सिंख्या 564/राज०
सहा०/ 14-15 मिनािंक 13.06.2014

3- शासनािेश सिंख्या 79/1/78(13) राजस्व-7 मिनािंक
22.07.1979

4- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या 95/8-मन०सिं०-6/2006 मिनािंक
07.04.2006

5- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या 147/8-मन०सिं०-14/93 मिनािंक
07.04.2006

6- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या 333/8-मन०सिं०-14/93 मिनािंक
08.12.2006

भविीय

(रणिीर मसिंह िुहन)

पी०सी०एस०

मनवासी बी-7 ए०डी०एि० कम्पाउन्द्ड

बरेली।

प्रमतमलप-

1- प्रिुख समचव मनयुमक्त अनुभाग-2 लखनऊ को इस
अनुरोि के सार्थ प्रेमषत मक कृपया सम्बमन्द्ित को अपने स्तर से भी
मनिेश जारी करने की कृपा करें।
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2- आयुक्त एविं समचव, िा० राजस्व पररषि लखनऊ को इस
अनुरोि के सार्थ प्रेमषत मक उपरोक्त साक्ष्य यमि पररषि िे हो तो
अिोहस्ताक्षरी को उपलब्ि कराने का कष्ट करें।

(रणिीर मसिंह िुहन)

पी०सी०एस०

मनवासी बी०-7 ए०डी०एि० कम्पाउन्द्ड

बरेली।

Letter dated 06.04.2015:

पिंजीकृत डाक द्वारा

प्रेषक,

आयुक्त,

सहारनपुर िण्डल,

सहारनपुर

सेवा िें,

रणिीर मसिंह िुहन

पी०सी०एस०

मनवासी बी०-7, ए०डी०एि० कम्पाउन्द्ड

बरेली।

सिंख्याः 1305/पी०ए० मिनािंक 06.04.2015

मवषयः शासन द्वारा मनगात आरोप पत्र के पठनीय साक्ष्य
मभजवाने के सम्बन्द्ि िें।

िहोिय,

कृपया उपरोक्त मवषयक अपने पत्र सिंख्या-522 मिनािंक
29.12.2014 को सन्द्िभा िहण करने का कष्ट करें, मजसके द्वारा
आरोप पत्र का उत्तर मिये जाने हेतु कमतपय पठनीय साक्ष्य उपलब्ि
कराये जाने तर्था उत्तर मिये जाने की सिय सीिा िें वृमद्ध मकये जाने
का अनुरोि मकया गया है।

इस सम्बन्द्ि िें िा० राजस्व पररषि को अपेमक्षत साक्ष्यों की
प्रमत मभजवाने हेतु कायाालय के पत्र सिंख्या-1057/पी०ए० मिनािंक
29.01.2015 भेजा गया मजसके सन्द्िभा िे पररषि ने पत्र सिंख्या-
68/8 मन०स०-30/2010 मिनािंक 23.02.2015 मजसके
सार्थ आपके द्वारा चाहे गये अमभलेखों की प्रमतमलमपयािं भेजते हुये
पत्र िें यह उल्लेख मकया गया है मक उक्त वािंमछत प्रपत्र िा० पररषि
के
पुत्र
सिंख्या-
327/8मन०स०-30/2010
मिनािंक
13.11.2014 द्वारा पूवा िें ही आपको उपलब्ि कराये जा चुके
है। िा० पररषि के पत्र मिनािंक 23.02.2015 िे यह भी अिंमकत
मकया गया है मक शािनािेश सिंख्या-79/1/78(13) राजस्व-7
मिनािंक 11.02.1979 का मिनािंक ऋुमर्वश 22.07.1979
र्िंमकत हो गया है मजसे सुिार कर पढा जाये।

1- आयुक्त सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर के पत्र सिंख्या-
333/आर०ए०-1 मिनािंक 03.05.2012 द्वारा प्रेमषत जािंज
आख्या।

2- मजलामिकारी शािली की पत्र सिंख्या-564/राज०
सहा०/14-15 मिनािंक 13.06.2014

3- शासनािेश सिंख्या- 79/1/78(13) राजस्व-7 मिनािंक
22.07.1979

4- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या- 95/8-मन०स०-6/2006 मिनािंक
07.04.2006

5- पररषि सिंख्या- 147/8- मन०स०- 14/93 मिनािंक
07.04.2006

6- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या- 333/8-मन०स०-6 /2006
मिनािंक 08.12.2006

अतः िा० राजस्व पररषि से प्राप्त उक्त पत्र मिनािंक
23.02.2015 के सार्थ सिंलवन उक्त अमभलेखों की प्रमतयािं पुनः
सिंलवन कर इस आश्य से भेजी जा रही है मक आरोप पत्र का उत्तर
अमभलेखों की प्रामप्त के उपरान्द्त एक सप्ताह के भीतर मभजवाना
सुमनमश्चत करें तामक जािंचाख्या शासन को सिय से प्रेमषत की जा
सके।

सिंलवनकः यर्थोक्त।

(तनवीर जफर अली)

जािंच अमिकारी/आयुक्त

सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर
सिंख्या एिंव मिनािंक तिैवः-

प्रमतमलमप मनम्नमलमखत को सूचानार्था एविं आवश्यक
कायावाही हेतु प्रेमषतः-

1- प्रिुख समचव, उ०प्र० शासन, मनयुमक्त अनुभाग-2,
लखनऊ।

2- आयुक्त एविं समचव, राजस्व पररषि, उ०प्र०, अनुभाग-8
लखनऊ।

जािंच अमिकारी/आयुक्त

सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर

शासनािेश सिंख्या

Letter of Enquiry Officer dated
21.04.2015:
10 All. Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
893

स्पीड पोस्र् द्वारा
प्रेषक,

आयुक्त,

सहारनपुर िण्डल,

सहारनपुर
सेवा िें,

रणिीर मसिंह िूहन,

पी०सी०एस०

मनवासी बी०-7, ए०डी०एि० कम्पाउन्द्ड,

बरेली।

सिंख्याः 1305/पी०ए० मिनािंक 21.04.2015

मवषयः आरोप पत्र का उत्तर मिये जाने के सम्बन्द्ि िें।

िहोिय,

आपको शासन द्वारा मनगात आरोप पत्र सिंख्या-
2670(1)/िो-2-2014-22(95)/93
मिनािंक
26.08.2014 मिनािंक 30.09.2014 को प्राप्त करा मिया गया
र्था। आपने अपने पत्र मिनािंक 17.10.2014 व 29.12.2014
के द्वारा आरोप पत्र िें पठनीय साक्ष्यों की प्रमतयािं मिये जाने हेतु
प्रार्थाना की र्थी। आपके पत्र मिनािंक 17.10.2014 के सन्द्िभा िें
िा० पररषि द्वारा पत्र सिंख्या-327/8-मन०स०-30/2010 मिनािंक
13.11.2014 के द्वारा पठनीय साक्ष्यों का प्रमतयािं आपको
उपलब्ि करायी जा चुकी है तर्था इस कायाालय के पत्र सिंख्या-
1305/पी०ए० मिनािंक 06.04.2015 के द्वारा भी पठनीय
साक्ष्यों की प्रमतयािं पुनः उपलब्ि कराते हुये यह मनिेश मिये गये र्थे
मक आप अपना उत्तर एक सप्ताह के भीतर उपलब्ि करा िें मकन्द्तु
अभी तक भी आपका कोई उत्तर प्राप्त नही हुआ है।

अतः इस सम्बन्द्ि िें आपको अमन्द्ति अवसर प्रिान करते हुये
पुनः मनिेमशत मकया जाता है मक आरोप पत्र का उत्तर एक सप्ताह के
भीतर मभजवाना सुमनमश्चत करें अन्द्यर्था उक्त के सम्बन्द्ि अिेत्तर
आवश्यक कायावाही कर िी जायेगी।

भविीय,

(तनवीर जफर अली)

जािंच अमिकारी/आयुक्त,

सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर

सिंख्या एिंव मिनािंक तिैवः-

प्रमतमलमप मनम्नमलमखत को सूचानार्था एविं आवश्यक
कायावाही हेतु प्रेमषतः-

1- प्रिुख समचव, उत्तर प्रिेश शासन, मनयुमक्त अनुभाग-2,
लखनऊ।

2- आयुक्त एविं समचव, राजस्व पररषि, उत्तर प्रिेश,
अनुभाग-8 लखनऊ।

जािंच अमिकारी/आयुक्त,

सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर

Letter of writ petitioner dated
30.04.2015:

प्रेषक,

रणिीर िूहन,

पी.सी.एस.

अपर मजला अमिकारी,

बरेली वतािान सम्बन्द्ि

िाननीय राजस्व पररषि,

लखनऊ (उत्तर प्रिेश)

मनवासी बी-7ए.डी.एि कम्पाउन्द्ड

बरेली

सेवा िें,

प्रिुख समचव,

मनयुमक्त-2 उत्तर प्रिशा शासन,

लखनऊ।

पत्रािंक
5056
मिनािंक 30/4/2015

मवषय
पत्र
सिंख्या
2670(1)/िो-2-201422(95)/93 लखनऊ मिनािंक 26अगस्त 2014 के आरोप पत्र
के मवरूद्ध िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आिेश ररर् सिंख्या
6908 आफ 2014 मिनािंक 5.11.2014

िहोिय,

कृपया अपने पत्र सिंख्या 2670 (1)/िो-2-201422(95)/93 लखनऊ मिनािंक 26अगस्त 2014 मजसके द्वारा
िेरे मवरूद्ध आरोप पत्र मनरगत मकया गया र्था तर्था िण्डल आयुक्त
सहारनपुर को जािंच अमिकारी मनयुक्त मकया गया र्था।

3- उक्त के सम्बन्द्ि िे अवगत करवाना है मक मजस आिेश
के अन्द्तगात िेरे द्वारा मनलािी सम्पामित की गई र्थी जो मजला
अमिकारी, प्रबूिनगर द्वारा स्वीकृत मकया गया र्था उसके मवरूद्ध िेरे
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मवरूद्ध उपरोक्त आरोप पत्र मनरगत मकया गया र्था। तर्था मनलािी को
आयुक्त एविं समचव द्वारा िेरे मवभागीय कायावाही को प्रचमलत मकया
गया र्था। तर्था मजला अमिकारी प्रबुद्धनगर द्वारा उक्त मनलािी को
मनरस्त कर मिया गया र्था। उक्त मनरस्तीकरण आिेश व समचव एविं
आयुक्त राजस्व पररषि के आिेश के मवरूद्ध यामच कताा (मजनके पक्ष
िे मनलािी छोड़ी गई र्थी िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय िे ररर् सिंख्या
6908 आफ 2014 योमजत कर िी गई र्थी। तर्था उसिें िाननीय
उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा स्र्ेेेर्स को के आिेश पाररत कर मिए गये र्थे।
इस प्रकार से िाननीय आयुक्त के मजस आिेश के मवरूद्ध िेरे मवरूद्ध
जािंच व आरोप पत्र मनरगत मकया गया र्था उसके िूल आिेश को ही
िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा Starus quo कर मिया गया है।
इस प्रकार से सम्पूणा प्रकरण िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय िे लमम्बत हो
गया है। तर्था िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा ही इस को अमन्द्ति रूप
से मनसताररत मकया जायेगा। अतः िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय िे
लमम्बत रहते हुए िेरे मवरूद्ध कोई प्रशामनक जािंच करना न्द्याय उमचत
नही होगा। तर्था िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय के आिेश मिनािंक
5.11.2014 की अविानना भी होगी। अतः उक्त आरोप पत्र को
िाननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय के आिेश मिनािंक 5.11.2014 जो मक
मनम्नवत है के क्रि िे आरोप पत्र को मनरस्त करने की कृपा करें।

Enquiry Report dated 11.06.2015:

प्रेषक,

आयुक्त,

सहारनपुर िण्डल,

सहारनपुर

सेवा िें,

प्रिुख समचव,

उत्तर प्रिेश शासन,

मनयुमक्त अनुभाग-2,

लखनऊ।

सिंख्याः
1515/पी०ए०
मिनािंक 11/06/2015

मवषयः श्री रणिीर मसिंह िुहन, पी०सी०एस०, तत्कालीन
अपर मजलामिकारी (मव/रा) शािली सम्प्रमत्त मनलमम्बत एविं सम्बद्ध
राजस्व पररषि, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ के मवरूद्ध चल रही
मवभागीय/अनुशासमनक कायावाही िें जािंच आख्या भेजने के सम्बन्द्ि
िे।

िहोिय,

कृपया शासन के पत्र सिंख्या-2670/िो-2-201422(95)/93 मिनािंक 26.08.2014 का सन्द्िभा िहण करने का
कष्ट करें मजसके द्वारा श्री रणिीर मसिंह िुहन, पी०सी०एस०,
तत्कालीन अपर मजलामिकारी (मव०/रा०) शािली सम्प्रमत
मनलमम्बत एविं सम्बद्ध राजस्व पररषि, उ०प्र० लखनऊ के मवरूद्ध
मवभागीय कायावाही प्रारम्भ करते हुये अिोहस्ताक्षरी को जािंच
अमिकारी नामित मकया गया। अपचारी अमिकारी को आरोप पत्र
सिंख्या- 2670 (1)/िो-2-2014-22(95)/93 मिनािंक
26.08.2014 के द्वारा आरोमपत मकया गया। अपचारी अमिकारी
पर मनम्न आरोप लगाये गयेः-

आरोप सिंख्या 01-

अपचारी अमिकारी द्वारा सहायक सिंरक्षक (मनष्क्रान्द्त
सम्पमत्त) की हैमसयत से मिनािंक 25.02.2012 को िाि मबडौली,
तहसील कैराना, मजला प्रबुद्धनगर की 11 खसरों की 27.819 है०
भूमि िे से 7 खसरों की 27.112 है० भूमि की नीलािी सम्पन्द्न
की गयी जबमक मनष्क्रान्द्त सम्पमत्त से सम्बमन्द्ित भारत सरकार के
ररपील एक्र्-2005 के पश्चात सभी पि स्वतः सिाप्त हो गये। उक्त
सम्पमत्त के नीलािी से पूवा शासन/ पररषि से िागािशान मलये मबना
मविान सभा सािान्द्य मनवााचन-2012 की अमिसूचना प्रभावी रहने
के िौरान मजला स्तर पर प्रकरण मवशेष िें मिये गये िागािशान को
कूर्रमचत ढिंग से अपनी सुमबिानुसार प्रयोग कर क्षेत्रामिकार के बाहर
जाकर मनष्क्रान्द्त/शत्रु सम्पमत्त का मवक्रय मकया गया। उक्त आरोप को
मसद्ध करने िें मनम्नमलमखत साक्ष्यों को पठनीय अिंमकत मकया गया
हैः-

1- आयुक्त सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर के पत्र सिंख्या-
333/आर०ए०-1, मिनािंक 03.05.2012 द्वारा प्रेमषत जािंच
आख्या।

2- मजलामिकारी, शािली का पत्र सिंख्या-564/राजस्व
सहायक/2014-15 मिनािंक 13.06.2014

3- शासनािेश सिंख्या- 79/1/78(13) राजस्व-7,
मिनािंक 22.02.1979

4- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या- 95/8-मन०सिं०-6/2006, मिनािंक
07.04.2006

5- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या- 147/8- मन०सिं०- 14/93,
मिनािंक 07.04.2006
6- पररषि पत्र सिंख्या- 333/8मन०सिं-14 /93, मिनािंक 08.12.2006

आरोप सिंख्या-2
10 All. Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
895

अपराची अमिकारी द्वारा नीलाि िें प्रमक्रयात्िक
अमनयमितता करते हुए मनयिमवरूद्ध तरीके से बहुत कि सिय के
प्रचार-प्रसार िें नीलािी की कायावाही सम्पन्द्न करायी गयी मजससे
कि बोली पर नीलाि स्वीकृमत से शासकीय िन की हामन हुयी। इस
आरोप को मसद्ध करने िें मनम्नमलमखत साक्ष्य पठनीय अिंमकत मकये
गयेः-

1- आयुक्त, सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर के पत्र सिंख्या-
333/आर०ए०-1 मिनािंक 03.05.2012 के द्वारा प्रेमषत जािंच
आख्या।

आरोप पत्र अपचारी अमिकारी को मिनािंक 30.09.2014
को प्राप्त हुआ मजसिें उसके द्वारा सिय प्रिान करने की प्रार्थाना की
गयी। अपचारी अमिकारी ने पत्र सिंख्या-522 मिनािंक
19.12.2014 के द्वारा आरोप पत्र िें पठनीय साक्ष्यों की प्रमतयािं
मिलाये जाने की प्रार्थाना की मजसके क्रि िे िा० राजस्व पररषि के
पत्र
सिंख्या-
327/8-मन०स०-30/2010
मिनािंक
13.11.2014 तर्था इस कायाालय के पत्र सिंख्या-1305/पी०ए०
मिनािंक 06.04.2015 के द्वारा अपचारी अमिकारी को पठनीय
साक्ष्यों की प्रमत प्रेमषत की गयी। आरोप पत्र का उत्तर िेने हेतु
अपचारी अमिकारी को पत्र सिंख्या-1305/पी०ए० मिनािंक
06.04.2015 एविं पत्र सिंख्या-1350/पी०ए० मिनािंक
21.04.2015 प्रेमषत मकये गये।

अपचारी अमिकारी ने पत्र सिंख्या-5056 मिनािंक
30.04.2015 जो शासन को सम्बोमित तर्था प्रमतमलमप
अिोहस्ताक्षरी को आवश्यक कायावाही हेतु पृष्ठािंमकत की गयी।
मजसिें यह कहा गया मक मजस आिेश के अन्द्तगात उसके द्वारा
नीलािी सम्पामित की गयी र्थी, जो मजलामिकारी प्रबुद्धनगर द्वारा
स्वीकृत मकया गया र्था, उसी के आिार पर उसके मवरूद्ध आयुक्त
एविं समचव, के द्वारा मवभागीय कायावाही प्रचमलत करायी मजसके
आिार पर आरोप पत्र मनगात हुआ। नीलाि को मजलामिकारी
प्रबुद्धनगर द्वारा मनरस्त कर मिया गया है। नीलाि के मनरस्तीकरण
के आिेश तर्था आयुक्त एविं समचव, राजस्व पररषि के आिेश के
मवरूद्ध याचीकताा (मजनके पक्ष िें नीलािी छोड़ी गयी र्थी)
िा०उच्च न्द्यायालय िे ररर् सिंख्या- 6908/2014 योमजत की
मजसिें िा० उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा मिनािंक 05.11.2014 को
यर्थामस्र्थमत (Status quo) बनाये रखने के आिेश पाररत मकये
गये। उक्त ररर् यामचका के िा० उच्च न्द्यायालय िे लमम्बत रहते
हुये कोई प्रशासमनक जािंच करना उमचत नही होगा।

अपचारी अमिकारी द्वारा प्रेमषत पत्र एिंव पठनीय साक्ष्यों का
अध्ययन एिंव पररशीलन करने पर पाया गया मक प्रर्थितः अपचारी
अमिकारी ने आरोप पत्र का कोई उत्तर नही मिया है और न ही
उक्त के सम्बन्द्ि िे अपचारी अमिकारी की ओर से िायर मकसी
ररर् यामचका िें पाररत आिेश का उल्लेख मकया है। अपचारी
अमिकारी ने मजलामिकारी प्रबुद्धनगर, सम्प्रमत जनपि शािली
द्वारा मनरस्त मकये गये नीलाि के मवरूद्ध नीलाि खरीिार द्वारा
िायर ररर् यामचका सिंख्या- 6908/2014 सुरेश कुिार एविं 14
अन्द्य बनाि आयुक्त एविं समचव, राजस्व पररषि, उ०प्र० लखनऊ
एविं अन्द्य िें िा० उच्च न्द्यायालय, इलाहाबाि खण्डपीठ लखनऊ
द्वारा पाररत आिेश मिनािंक 05.11.2014 की छायाप्रमत प्रस्तुत
की गयी है मजसिें यर्थामस्र्थमत (Status quo) बनाये रखने के
आिेश िा० उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा पाररत मकये है, से अपचारी
अमिकारी को मकसी प्रकार का कोई लाभ प्राप्त ही नही होता
क्योंमक अपचारी अमिकारी को तत्सिय प्रचमलत मनयिों के
अिीन आरोमपत मकया गया है और विं पररमस्र्थमतयािं वतािान िें भी
िौजूि है। अपचारी अमिकारी द्वारा आरोप पत्र का उत्तर न िेकर
िा० उच्च न्द्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आिेशों को उक्त के पररप्रेक्ष्य िे
सन्द्िमभात कर लगाये गये आरोपों से बचने का असफल प्रयास है।
आरोप पत्र के पठनीय साक्ष्यों से पूणातः स्पष्ट है मक अपचारी
अमिकारी ने सहायक सिंरक्षक ( मनष्क्रान्द्त सम्पमत्त) की हैमसयत से
मिनािंक 25.02.2012 को िाि मबडौली, तहसील कैराना,
मजला शािली की 27.819 हे० भूि िे से 27.112 हे० भूमि
की नीलािी सम्पन्द्न करायी। जमबक मनष्क्रान्द्त सम्पमत्त से सम्बमन्द्ित
भारत सरकार के ररअपील एक्र् 2005 के पश्चात सभी पि स्वतः
सिाप्त हो गये। उक्त सम्पमत्त के नीलािी से पूवा शासन/पररषि से
िागािशान मलये मबना मविान सभा सािान्द्य मववााचन-2012 की
अमिसूचना प्रभावी रहने के िौरान मजला स्तर पर प्रकरण मवशेष िे
मिये गये िागािशान को कूर् रमचत ढिंग से अपनी सुमविानुसार
प्रयोग कर क्षेत्रामिकार से बाहर जाकर मनष्क्रान्द्त /शत्रु सम्पमत्त का
मवक्रय मकया गया तर्था नीलािी िे प्रमक्रयात्िक अमनयमितता
करते हुये मनयि मवरूद्ध तरीके से बहुत कि सिय के प्रचार-प्रसार
िे नीलािी की कायावाही सम्पन्द्न करायी गयी मजससे कि बोली
पर नीलाि स्वीकृमत से शासकीय िन की हामन हुयी।

अतः उपरोक्त के आिार पर अपचारी अमिकारी पर लगाये
गये िोनों आरोप सिंख्या-1 व 2 पूणातः मसद्ध होते हैं।

सिंलवनः यर्थोक्त।

भविीय.

(तनवीर जफर अली)

जािंच अमिकारी/आयुक्त,
सहारनपुर िण्डल, सहारनपुर

Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.-
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"7. Procedure for imposing major
penalties.- Before imposing any major
penalty on a Government servant, an
inquiry shall be held in the following
manner:

(i) The disciplinary authority may
himself inquire into the charges or appoint
an authority subordinate to him as Inquiry
Officer to inquire into the charges.

(ii)
The
facts
constituting
the
misconduct on which it is proposed to take
action shall be reduced in the form of
definite charge or charges to be called
charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be
approved by the disciplinary authority:

Provided that where the appointing
authority is Governor, the charge-sheet
may
be approved
by
the
Principal
Secretary or the Secretary; as the case may
be, of the concerned department.