JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.02.2015 and also a communication dated 20.12.2017. By the aforesaid communications, the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of reduction in pension of Rs. 5,000/- a month for a period of one year. His request for reconsideration of the same was also rejected.

2. Facts in brief would indicate that while the petitioner was working as a Mamlatdar, from which post he retired on 30.09.2012, a date prior to his retirement, a charge-sheet was issued. The charge-sheet dated 29.09.2012 imputed a misconduct against the petitioner. According to the department, in context of a parcel of land at Iyava Vasna, Survey No. 189/1, the land in question was purchased by one Kamani Chemical Works, a partnership firm and a mutation entry pursuant to such purchase on 10.05.1987, was recorded being Mutation Entry No. 1331. An Entry No. 3262 was recorded on the basis of a dissolution deed of partnership produced by the partners of the firm, seven in number. According to the department, the petitioner issued notices under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on 02.06.2009 to only seven partners whereas the partnership firm had eleven partners. On a complaint being made by one of the four partners who did not receive the notice under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it was the case of the department that when in the land in question as per the revenue records the name of Kamani Chemicals was registered and such a partnership firm had eleven partners, without obtaining a copy of the partnership deed from the Registrar of Firms and to verify the number of partners, the petitioner, without such verification, issued notices only to seven partners and not all eleven partners, and therefore, such mutation of entries indicated that the petitioner had acted with doubtful integrity.

2.1 The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet. An inquiry was held and by a report submitted on 11.07.2013, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner.

2.2 The Disciplinary Authority having disagreed, issued a show cause notice along with the Inquiry Officer’s Report in September, 2013. After inviting the petitioner’s comments on the Disagreement Note, by the impugned order, the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- cut in pension per month for one year was imposed.

3. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, would make the following submissions:

3.1 He would submit that a primary Inquiry Report was conducted by his superior i.e. the Prant Officer, Sanand and based on the report which the Prant Officer indicated that an appeal against the mutation has been filed in his capacity as an Appellate Authority and the same is pending, decision would accordingly be taken. That in the appeal, at the hands of the aggrieved partners who were not given such notices, the Appellate Authority found that there was no misconception and the order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioner, was just and proper.

3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, a revision was filed by the aggrieved partners and the Revisional Authority i.e. the Collector found that there was nothing wrong in the order of the Dy. Collector and the revision was rejected.

3.3 Mr. Desai, learned counsel, would submit that when on the appellate side in capacity of he acting in a quasi judicial capacity when the mutation entry in question was confirmed, there was no reason why departmental proceedings could have been taken against the petitioner.

3.4 Mr. Desai, learned counsel, would further submit that even an inquiry proceeding was initiated against Shri R.G. Chaudhary, the concerned Deputy Collector, who confirmed the order of the petitioner. However, the State, by an order dated 30.01.2017, found that as the dissolution deed did not have the exact details of the number of partners, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to take a view other than t