# U.P v. Union of India the facts were that

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 93
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-11-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18145 of 1996
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-v-union-of-india-the-facts-were-that-40302
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Service
Law-reversion-order passed after full
fledged
Disciplinary
enquiries-against
sub
Registrar-who
without
proper
enquiry under section 379 of the stamp
Manual-imposed stamp duty on the
valuation of Rs.4,23,000/- while the
A.D.M. Finance found the valuation more
than 39 lacs-even in absence of the
allegation of corruption-the inference of
extraneous consideration can be drawnthe
order
of
reversion
from
Asstt.
Inspector
General
to
the
post
of
Registrar-held proper.

Held- Para 18

In the present case even though there
may not be any specific allegation of
corruption against the petitioner, in our
opinion he certainly acted in a manner
causing serious loss to the Government
exchequer by the manner he disposed of
the stamp cases. As found by the enquiry
officer the petitioner disposed of the
stamp cases in utter violation of the
provisions of the Stamp Act and Stamp
Manual. From this a reasonable inference
can be drawn that he passed such orders
for extraneous considerations.
Case law discussed:
2001 (91) FLR 105
2001 (91) FLR 409
AIR 1979 SC-1022

(B) Constitution of India Article 226-
Bonafide
mistake
and
deliberate
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
94
mistake-difference
between
the
two
explained-petitioner
without
spot
inspetition-ignoring the report of A.D.M.
Finance-relied the valuation of House as
60 years old-while it was 28 years oldcaused great revenue loss-amount to
deliberate
mistake-whether
the
exemption from disciplinary action can
be granted? Held 'No'

Held- Para 16

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that the orders passed by the
petitioner were quasi judicial order and
hence if any one is aggrieved against the
same he could file a revision under
Section 56 of the Stamp Act but no
disciplinary proceeding can be taken
against the petitioner for passing such
quasi judicial order. We do not agree. It
is well established by a catena of
decision of the Supreme Court that
disciplinary proceedings can be initiated
even for passing a judicial or quasi
judicial order vide Union of India vs. K.K.
Dhawan AIR 1993 SC 1478, S. Govinda
Menon vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Banda Tent House Association V. State of U.P. and others
93
possession is not a sine qua non of
completing the transfer of the right to use
any goods."

10. In the above case of State of
U.P. v. Union of India the facts were that
the Department of Tele-communication,
Government of India supplied telephone
connections to subscribers and collected
rental on the same. The question was
whether
the
department
of
Telecommunication is a dealer and hence
liable to pay Trade Tax. The Supreme
Court held that the supply of telephone
connection satisfied requirement of the
transfer
of
the
right
to
use
for
consideration. The Tele-Phone and all
other accessories giving access to the
telephone exchange are goods, and hence
the requirement of Section 3 F are
satisfied and the department of Telecommunication is a dealer and is liable to
pay tax under the Act.

11. It has been clearly held in the
above decision that the fact that the goods
remain within the ultimate control of the
owner is irrelevant for deciding whether
there was a transfer of use, hence we have
to hold against the petitioner as we are
bound by the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Union
of India (supra).

12. For the reasons given above this
petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18145 of 1996

Mukhtar Ahsan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.P. Agrawal
Seema Singh
Mahima Mauria

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Service
Law-reversion-order passed after full
fledged
Disciplinary
enquiries-against
sub
Registrar-who
without
proper
enquiry under section 379 of the stamp
Manual-imposed stamp duty on the
valuation of Rs.4,23,000/- while the
A.D.M. Finance found the valuation more
than 39 lacs-even in absence of the
allegation of corruption-the inference of
extraneous consideration can be drawnthe
order
of
reversion
from
Asstt.
Inspector
General
to
the
post
of
Registrar-held proper.

Held- Para 18

In the present case even though there
may not be any specific allegation of
corruption against the petitioner, in our
opinion he certainly acted in a manner
causing serious loss to the Government
exchequer by the manner he disposed of
the stamp cases. As found by the enquiry
officer the petitioner disposed of the
stamp cases in utter violation of the
provisions of the Stamp Act and Stamp
Manual. From this a reasonable inference
can be drawn that he passed such orders
for extraneous considerations.
Case law discussed:
2001 (91) FLR 105
2001 (91) FLR 409
AIR 1979 SC-1022

(B) Constitution of India Article 226-
Bonafide
mistake
and
deliberate
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
94
mistake-difference
between
the
two
explained-petitioner
without
spot
inspetition-ignoring the report of A.D.M.
Finance-relied the valuation of House as
60 years old-while it was 28 years oldcaused great revenue loss-amount to
deliberate
mistake-whether
the
exemption from disciplinary action can
be granted? Held 'No'

Held- Para 16

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that the orders passed by the
petitioner were quasi judicial order and
hence if any one is aggrieved against the
same he could file a revision under
Section 56 of the Stamp Act but no
disciplinary proceeding can be taken
against the petitioner for passing such
quasi judicial order. We do not agree. It
is well established by a catena of
decision of the Supreme Court that
disciplinary proceedings can be initiated
even for passing a judicial or quasi
judicial order vide Union of India vs. K.K.
Dhawan AIR 1993 SC 1478, S. Govinda
Menon vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC
1274.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 1478
1994 (3) SCC-357
AIR 1992 SC-1233
AIR 1997 SC-3571
2003 (2) UPLBEC 1456
1999 SC-1999

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
31.1.1996 Annexure 14 to the writ
petition by which the petitioner after an
enquiry has been reverted from the post of
Assistant Inspector General (Registration)
to the post of Registrar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is a class II officer
in
the
employment
of
the
State
Government. He joined the service as
Sub-Registrar
from
13.2.1970
on
probation and he was confirmed on
13.2.1972. He was promoted as Assistant
Inspector
General
(Registration)
on
3.8.1991 and was posted at Bulandshahr.
It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ
petition that the respondents 3 and 4 had
some grudge against the petitioner and
hence
a
preliminary
enquiry
was
conducted in connection with the letter
dated 16.3.1994 written by the Inspector
General (Registration) to the petitioner
vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition. By
this letter the petitioner was asked to
explain why the record of the order dated
18.10.1992 was not sent to the A.D.M.
(Finance) and the details about the
document no.1608/93. Thereafter by letter
dated 4.6.1994 Annexure 2 to the writ
petition the petitioner was informed that
an enquiry was being instituted against
the petitioner on various charges and the
petitioner was placed under suspension
vide order dated 24.5.1994 Annexure 3 to
the writ petition. The petitioner was also
served a charge sheet vide Annexure 5 to
the writ petition.

3. A perusal of the said charge sheet
shows that the allegations against the
petitioner are that the petitioner has
grossly undervalued certain property at
Rs.5,42,633/-
although
the
A.D.M.
(Finance) reported that the value of the
property was about Rs.15 lacs. The
allegation was that the petitioner had not
considered the evidence of the witnesses
under Rules 347, 348 and 349 of the
Stamp Rules and merely relied on the
exparte version of the witnesses and thus
there was huge loss to the revenue. It was
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mukhtar Ahsan V. State of U.P. and others
95
alleged that this was done deliberately by
the petitioner for gaining some benefit.

4. Similarly charge no. 2 was
regarding some other orders passed by the
petitioner in which he has grossly
undervalued the valuable property. The
petitioner had valued the properties for a
total of Rs.4,23,000/- while their value
would be over Rs.39 lacs. The other
allegations are also similar and relate to
gross under valuation.

5. The petitioner submitted an
explanation vide Annexure 6 to the writ
petition and also filed a supplementary
reply vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
Thereafter an enquiry was held.

6. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the
writ petition that the enquiry was not
conducted in a fair and proper manner and
the petitioner was not given opportunity
to produce his witnesses. The petitioner
also applied for change of the enquiry
officer. However, the petitioner was
informed that the enquiry has been
completed on 24.2.1995 and a report has
been sent to the State Government. With
this order dated 27.6.1995 vide Annexure
9 to the writ petition copy of the enquiry
report was also annexed. The report also
mentions the proposed punishment vide
Annexure 10 to the writ petition. True
copy of the enquiry report is Annexure 11
to the writ petition. Finally the impugned
order
dated
31..1.1996
was
passed
reverting the petitioner and withholding
his integrity certificate of 1993-94 vide
Annexure 14 to the writ petition.
Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed
in this Court.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed
and we have perused the same. In
paragraph 5 it is denied that the petitioner
was not supplied copies of the material
papers mentioned in the charge sheet. In
paragraph 6 it is denied that the enquiry
was not conducted in a proper and fair
manner. It is also denied that the
petitioner was not given opportunity to
produce his witness or to cross examine
Babu Lal A.D.M. (Finance). In fact the
enquiry report which is Annexure 11 to
the writ petition makes it clear that the
petitioner had cross examined Babu Lal
on 22.1.1994. The petitioner was also
heard personally in the enquiry. In
paragraph 7 it is stated that after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner the enquiry was completed on
24.2.1995.
Hence
his
letter
dated
26.2.1995 praying for change of the
enquiry officer had no meaning. It is also
stated that the petitioner should have
approached the U.P. Public Service
Tribunal as an alternative remedy.

8. As regards the allegation against
the respondents 3 and 4, they have been
denied as stated in paragraph 15 to 18 of
the counter affidavit and the comments of
these officers are Annexures C.A. 1 and
C.A. 2 to the counter affidavit.

9. In paragraph 19 it is stated that
even a judicial officer has to act honestly
and
conscientiously.
He
cannot
be
pardoned if he conducted proceedings
with ulterior motive causing huge loss to
the State. A perusal of the enquiry report
Annexure 11 to the writ petition shows
that the petitioner decided cases in clear
violation of Section 27 of the Indian
Stamp Act and rules 347, 348 and 349 of
the Stamp Manual. These rules give
guidelines regarding the way in which the
proceedings of stamp cases should be
conducted. The object of these rules is to
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
96
ensure that all efforts are made for
determining the real market value of the
property. Under Rule 349 it is the duty of
the officer concerned to thoroughly
examine and analyse all the relevant
evidence so as to reach a genuine and
valid conclusion of the correct value of
the property. A perusal of the enquiry
report shows that the findings are that the
petitioner did not conduct the proceedings
in this manner. In paragraph 20 it is stated
that an officer is expected to be honest
and sincere.

Various other averments have been
made but it is not necessary for us to go
into the same.

10. The findings of the enquiry
officer are findings of fact and we cannot
go into the same in writ jurisdiction as it
is not a court of first appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was only acting in his judicial capacity
and if he has passed a wrong order then
that was subject to appeal/ revision under
Section 56 of the Stamp Act. Learned
counsel has relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in P.C. Joshi vs. State of
U.P. 2001 (91) FLR 105 in which the
Supreme Court observed:

"If in every case where an order of a
subordinate court is found to be faulty a
disciplinary action were to be initiated,
the
confidence
of
the
subordinate
judiciary will be shaken and the officers
will be in constant fear of writing a
judgment so as not to face a disciplinary
enquiry and thus judicial officers cannot
act independently or fearlessly."

12. The petitioner has also relied on
a Division Bench decision of this Court in
Vijendra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. 2001
(91) FLR 409 where the above decision of
the Supreme Court has been followed.
The petitioner has also relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Union
of India vs. J. Ahmed AIR 1979 SC 1022
where the Supreme Court observed that
lack of efficiency and failure to attain the
highest standards of administrative ability
while holding a high post would not
themselves constitute misconduct.

13. In our opinion the aforesaid
decision of the Supreme Court are wholly
distinguishable. If it were a case of
bonafide error then of course it would not
be a misconduct on the part of a judicial
officer to pass such an order. Judges like
other human beings, can also make
mistakes. As Lord Denning has said "The
Judge has not been born who has never
made a mistake." However, there is
difference between a bona fide mistake
and deliberate mistake for extraneous
considerations. A copy of the enquiry
report, Annexure 11 to the writ petition,
shows that it was not a bona fide mistake
committed by the petitioner but a
deliberate one. As regards charge no. 1
the finding of the enquiry officer is that
the petitioner did not make the enquiries
as contemplated by rule 379 of the Stamp
Manual and instead he relied on the
exparte evidence of a party due to which
there was a heavy loss to the revenue. The
petitioner never made spot inspection in
respect of this property as he made in the
case of other properties. The petitioner
did not issue any notice to the registering
officer and hence the officer could not
know that the case has been transferred to
the petitioner. The petitioner did not also
take into consideration the report of the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mukhtar Ahsan V. State of U.P. and others
97
A.D.M. (Finance) which was based on the
spot inspection and he did not himself
make any spot inspection. The petitioner
relied on the valuation of a house which
was 60 years old, whereas the house in
question was 28 years old, and hence the
exemplar was not relevant.

14. Similarly as regards charge no. 2
it has been found that the petitioner
grossly violated rules 347, 248 and 349 of
the Stamp Rules in making his valuation
and thus grossly undervalued the property
in question. The enquiry officer has
considered this charge which deals with
four cases in great detail and has found
that the petitioner caused a loss of
Rs.5,07,630/-
to
the
revenue.
The
petitioner did not give opportunity of
hearing to the registration officer . It was
observed by the enquiry officer that when
the petitioner did not find the paper
showing the correct market value it was
his duty under Section 47 (3) to hold an
enquiry for the correct valuation under
that provision. He should have issued
notice to the relevant parties under rule 37
and should have held proceedings only 30
days thereafter, but he held proceeding on
9.6.1993 itself and same day held spot
inspection which should have been held
after 30 days after giving notice. Thus
Section 47 (3) and rule 43 were clearly
violated. Rule 38 was also violated and no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
registering officer. Only one day after
receiving certain papers in an exparte
manner the petitioner passed the order
dated 10.6.1993. He also violated rule 49.
The report of the A.D.M. (Finance) shows
that in the khasra and khatauni it was
shown that the property in question was
recorded in the name of Agarwal Cold
Storage and Ram Kishan Das and Shanti
Lal, registered firm. According to the
khasra the cold storage is recorded as
abadi and old parti and no crops have
been sown there. It was never mentioned
that agriculture was done on the said plot.
Thus there was clear violation of Section
27, 47 (3) and Rule 347, 348, and 349 of
the Rules causing heavy loss to the
revenue.

15. Charge no. 3 against the
petitioner was that by his order dated
12.2.1993 he has shown the market value
of certain properties at Rs. One lac per
bigha, whereas it was really between
Rs.3.50 lacs to Rs. 4 lacs per bighas. Thus
the petitioner has caused a loss of
Rs.97937.50 to the revenue. Similarly on
charge no. 4 also the petitioner has been
found guilty by the enquiry officer. This
charge was that by his order dated
18.10.1992 the petitioner has undervalued
the
property
and
caused
loss
of
Rs.46400/- to the revenue.

16. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the orders passed
by the petitioner were quasi judicial order
and hence if any one is aggrieved against
the same he could file a revision under
Section 56 of the Stamp Act but no
disciplinary proceeding can be taken
against the petitioner for passing such
quasi judicial order. We do not agree. It is
well established by a catena of decision of
the Supreme Court that disciplinary
proceedings can be initiated even for
passing a judicial or quasi judicial order
vide Union of India vs. K.K. Dhawan AIR
1993 SC 1478, S. Govinda Menon vs.
Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1274; Union
of India vs. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC
357; Union of India vs. A.N. Saxena AIR
1992 SC 1233; Government of Tamil
Nadu vs. K.N. Ramamurthy, AIR 1997
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
98
SC 3571; Hari Singh vs. Governor, U.P.
2003 (2) UPLBEC1456 etc.

17. In State Bank of India vs. T.J.
Paul, AIR 1999 SC 1994 the Supreme
Court held that even when mala fide and
corrupt practice is not alleged against the
employee he may be held guilty of
misconduct if he acts in a manner which
jeopardises the interest of the employer.
In that case the allegation was that the
respondent
granted
a
bank
loan
negligently and the bank suffered a
serious loss. The Supreme Court held that
even if this was not a case of
insubordination or disobedience of orders
of the superior officer it was an act
prejudicial to the bank and there was
gross negligence which involved serious
loss to the bank, and hence it is a case of
misconduct.

18. In the present case even though
there may not be any specific allegation
of corruption against the petitioner, in our
opinion he certainly acted in a manner
causing serious loss to the Government
exchequer by the manner he disposed of
the stamp cases. As found by the enquiry
officer the petitioner disposed of the
stamp cases in utter violation of the
provisions of the Stamp Act and Stamp
Manual. From this a reasonable inference
can be drawn that he passed such orders
for extraneous considerations.

The findings recorded by the enquiry
officer are findings of fact and we cannot
interfere with them in writ jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2284 of 2001

Manoj Kumar Verma & others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Haider Zaidi
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Dhamendra Singhal
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 482summoning order-prayer for quashing
of-process issued on a complaint-based
on actual occurrence-and not as a
counter
blast.-supported
by
two
witnesses- held, evidence on record
sufficient to make out a prima facie casecannot be interfered.

Held- Para 6

On the facts of the present case, there is
a report to Senior Superintendent of
Police
and
the
complainant
has
examined herself and the two witnesses.
In her statement, she has supported the
allegations set forth in the complaint.
The contention of the complainant was
also supported by two witnesses, who
had
witnessed
the
occurrence.
The
evidence available on the record is
sufficient to make out a prima facie case
against the applicants.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 2960
1976 (13) ACC 224 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. By means of present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants
have prayed for quashing of the order
dated 13.12.2000 in Criminal Case no.
879 of 2000.