JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 09.10.2015, whereby punishment was imposed under Rule 43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules and it was ordered that 10% of pension was to be withheld for a period of five years.

3. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was in service, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against this petitioner vide order dated 08.11.2006 in connection with Mutation of CNT land to a non-tribal and a charge-sheet ¼Ái=&d½ was issued alleging therein as under:-

“(i) In village Hundru, Khata No. 312-3.53 Acre shows as Bakast Bhuinhari Land in the name of Birsa Pahaan in R.S.- Survey Khatian, also registered in his name in Register II,- for 6 Kattha of this land- Zamabandi was illegally allowed in the name of Non-tribal, vide Daakhil Khariz Case No. 589 R 27/86-87.

(ii) In village Hundru, Khata No. 316, different plots, Land shows in the name of Mahaliya Pahann in R.S. Survey Khatian, also registered in the name of Birsa Pahan in Register II- later on land was transferred to Non-tribal (Chhedi Khan), Zamabandi in the name of non-tribal happened through case no. 15 R/70-71, the land was thereafter further transferred in succession and succession Zamabandi Case no. 1765 R 27/77-78 ( in the name of Badal Khan) was concluded.

3.69 acre of this land was thereafter again transferred to non-tribals and this time Zamabandi was finalized by the petitioner in the year 1986-87. It is alleged that the latest Zamabandis of 1986-87 were illegally allowed in the name of Non-tribals, vide Daakhil Khariz Case No. 589 R 27/86-87 and others, by the petitioner.”

4. Learned counsel contended that all the above lands were Bhuinhari lands, and the Zamindari over these lands were not vested in the State Government. The allegation in all cases is that the names of the tenants were replaced by the petitioner while performing his duty as Circle Officer in Dakhil Khariz case and it has further been alleged that the said mutation is in violation to Section 46 and Section 49 of the CNT Act, and transfer of tribal lands in all the above cases had taken place without the permission of Deputy Commissioner; as such, it was concluded by the disciplinary authority that the Dakhil Khariz done by this petitioner, on the basis of irregular transfer is irregular and against the provisions of CNT Act.

5. The departmental proceeding culminated in the impugned order (Annexure-12). Mr. Shekhar contended that the mutation of any land does not create any right title and interest over the property and there cannot be any illegal transfer done beyond the provisions of CNT Act. He further contended that in CNT Act there is no provision of mutation and the Dakhil Khariz/Mutation is only done after transfer of land and its registration.

He submits that in the instant case, the application for the Daakhil Khariz/Mutation was inspected and scrutinized by the Karamchari and the Circle Inspector and after this process, the matter was placed before him and proceeding for mutation in the name of the owner was initiated by publishing a general public notice and thereafter, the name of the purchaser was mutated. He contended that in all this procedure, no irregularity or misconduct has been committed by this petitioner. He further submits that no any person has even challenged the said mutation by filing any appeal before the competent authority.

He contended that mutation does not create any right title and interest over the land; rather it only relates to the land revenue to be paid to the Government and proof of possession. In other words; one who is in possession of the land will pay the rent to the Government. The incorporation of provisions of CNT Act by the respondents in proving the charge against this petitioner is totally misplaced and against the provision of