IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of termination was appealable under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, and the finding of the enquiry officer cannot be interfered with unless found to be perverse or contrary.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.12.1990 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 in Revenue Revision Case No. 242-1/87, whereby the Respondent No.2 quashed the orders of appellate Courts and maintained the termination order dated 18.04.1983 (Annexure A-4) of the petitioner passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur.

2. The petitioner was a Patwari in Tahsil Raipur when he was put under suspension in the year 1982. The allegation against the Patwari was of misbehaviour, illegal recovery and misplacing the records & and after having proved the alleged charges, he was dismissed from the service by order dated 18.04.1983 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur. The order of dismissal was subjected to appeal before the Collector, Raipur which was dismissed by order dated 15.09.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 15.09.1983 before the Commissioner, Raipur by way of second appeal, which was vide order dated 29.04.1987 partly allowed and order of dismissal was turned down into order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner further challenged the order dated 29.04.1987 before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by way of revision and the learned Board of Revenue setting aside the order dated 29.04.1987 of compulsory retirement maintained the order dated 18.04.1983 of dismissal from service. Hence, the present petition seeking following relief(s) :-

“1 (a) That the impugned order dismissing the applicant from service passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raipur in Departmental Enquiry Case No.1 of 1982 on 18.04.1983 (Annexure A-4) and all other orders passed by Additional Collector Raipur in Revenue Appeal No.132-A/121 of 82-83 on 15-09-83, by Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revenue Appeal No.33-B/121 of 83-84 on 29-4- 87 and by M.P. Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revenue Revision No.242-I/87 passed on 22-12- 90 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant with all benefits of service.

(b) That the period of absence from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement including the period spent under suspension may be directed to be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes; and

(c) Consequent upon reliefs granted in para (a) (b), the Respondents may be directed to pay to the applicant all arrears of salary and allowances as may become payable to him within such period as may be fixed by the Hon’ble Tribunal with a direction to pay such portion of arrears by way of immediate relief pending final payment of claims; and

(d) Such other relief by a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be given even though not specifically prayed for;

(e) That the Rules framed by the Commissioner of Settlement and Director of Land Records in exercise of executive powers to amend, or repeal the statutory rules relating to the appointment, punishment and prescribing other conditions of service be declared ultravires and inoperative against the statutory rules with such further directions as may be deemed fit and proper.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the competent authority was without application of mind. The learned Commissioner partly allowed the appeal in so far as punishment was concerned and modified the punishment by converting the punishment of dismissal from service into one of the compulsory retirement vide order dated 29.04.1987 (Annexure A/2) but the learned Appellate Court did not consider all grounds of appeal and set aside the order of learned Commissioner holding that the appeal was not maintainable. It was further submitted that according to the enquiry report, no Presenting Officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted against the principle of natural justice. The enquiry report clearly indicated that as many as 09 charges were framed against the petitioner out of which only charge Nos.6, 7 and 8 were