Madhuresh Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“(I) For quashing of order as contained in Memo No 2951 dated 26.02.2020 issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, under the orders of the Governor of Bihar, whereby and where under an order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner:

(A) Censure for the year, 2011-2012.

(B) Withholding of two annual increments of pay without cumulative effect, in most arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable manner.

(II) For quashing of Memo No 9171 dated 05.10.2020 issued by the Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna under the orders of the Governor of Bihar, whereby and where under review filed by the petitioner has not been considered and the order of punishment was confirmed and order of punishment passed against the petitioner has been upheld in a most arbitrary, illegal, cryptic manner.

(III) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled ind the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. While posted as a Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR) at Banmankhi Sub-division in the district of Purnea, the petitioner has passed an order under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 in Case No 80 of 2011 – 2012. The order was assailed by the applicant before the Divisional Commissioner and the admitted position is that the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the petitioner has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner.

4. The Divisional Commissioner was of the opinion that the petitioner has passed the order in excess of jurisdiction. Such conclusion is based on the fact that one Miscellaneous Ceiling Case No 1 of 2010 under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Land Ceiling Act” for short), in respect of the same land, was pending before the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Purnea. It is under such circumstance that the petitioner has been served with a charge memo on Prapatra “KA” under communication dated 21.05.2013. The charge reads as follows:—

^^vki cueu[kh vuqeaMy esa Hkwfelqèkkj mi lekgÙkkZ ds in ij inLFkkfir gSaA

vkids }kjk Hkwfe fookn fujkdj.k okn la[;k&80@11&12 esa ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) vihykFkhZ Jh jkts'k Íf"k ,oa vU; }kjk vk;qDr] iwf.kZ;k¡ izeaMy] iwf.kZ;k¡ ds U;k;ky; esa vihy okn nk;j fd;k x;kA

vk;qDr] iwf.kZ;k¡ izeaMy] iwf.kZ;k¡ }kjk vihy okn dh lwuokbZ ds Øe esa ik;k x;k fd vkius ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk C.W.J.C No- 4744@84 ,oa 4926@84 esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa vij lekgÙkkZ] Hkw&gncanh] iwf.kZ;k¡ ds U;k;ky; esa py jgs fofoèk Hkw&gncanh okn la[;k&01@2010 dh lquokbZ yafcr jgus ds ckotwn vkius Hkwfe fookn fujkdj.k okn la[;k&80@11&12 esa fcgkj Hkwfe fookn fujkdj.k vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk&4¼2½ ,oa ¼3½ esa fufgr {ks=kfèkdkj ds izfrdwy vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;kA tcfd mDr Hkw&gncanh okn dh dk;Zokgh esa EkkStk&dpgjh cyqvk] Fkkuk la[;k&56] [kkrk la[;k&1460] 1465] 1764] 118 ,oa 119 esa dqy 40 ¼pkyhl½ [ksljksa ls jdok 21-05 ,dM+ Hkwfe dk LokfeRo dk fuèkkZj.k vij lekgÙkkZ] Hkw&gncanh] iwf.kZ;k¡ ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjkèkhu gSA

mDr ls Li"V gS fd vkius vfèkdre lhek fuèkkZj.k vkns'k ,oa vtZu la'kksèku&1972 dh èkkjk 5¼2½ ,oa 16¼1½¼2½ dk Li"V mYya?ku fd;k gSA blls Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd vkius iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj futh LokFkZ flf) gsrq vius {ks=kkfèkdkj ls gVdj vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k gSA

vkidk ;g ÑR; izFke n`"V;k fcgkj Hkwfe fookn fujkdj.k vfèkfu;e ,oa Hkw&gncanh vfèkfu;e dk ?kksj mYya?ku gS ftlls xaHkhj Hkw&fookn ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA**

5. The petitioner has responded to the charge memo by a detailed reply which is dated 25.09.2013. The petitioner, in his reply, has stated that he was the competent authority under Section 2 (a) of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution (for brevity, BLDR) Act, 2009. However, he had not entertained the application filed before him after due consideration of pendency of the Miscellaneous Ceilin