JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashutosh Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 and Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that he does not want to press prayer no. 1 and accordingly, this Court proceeds to consider prayer no. 2 of the writ petition.

3. The sole question for consideration of this Court is as to whether a person while in exercise of his discharge of official functions can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings with regard to any decision taken by him, if so under what circumstances?

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Deputy Collector by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1999 and was posted at District - Mau, Tehsil Sadar. When an application was moved before him under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, seeking conversion of land from the nature of non ZA to ZA land.

5. The petitioner in exercise of his jurisdiction as Deputy Collector heard the said matter, invited objections as well as report from the Tehsildar and after considering entire material available on record, by means of order dated 17.11.2009, allowed the said application converting the said land into ZA land.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the said application, it was mentioned that certain fraudulent entries have been made and corrected. The said land which was infact ZA land was recorded non ZA land and only to rectify and correct the revenue records, the petitioner was called upon to exercise power under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act.

7. Order dated 17.11.2009, passed by the petitioner was subjected to revision before the Commissioner, who allowed the said revision and set aside the order passed by the petitioner. While allowing the said revision the Commissioner held that petitioner did not had any jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act for converting non ZA land to ZA land. While setting aside the order passed by the petitioner, the Commissioner also recorded that copy of his judgment be placed before the Chief Secretary, Appointments for conducting an inquiry in the said matter. It is on the basis of direction issued by the Additional Commissioner that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet was issued to him on 05.02.2018. The charge sheet was issued by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh who was appointed inquiry officer.

8. The inquiry proceedings concluded and inquiry report was submitted on 19.06.2018, exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. Finding was returned in the inquiry report that there was no mala-fide intention neither it can be alleged nor can be proved for which the petitioner in exercise of his judicial functions could be charged.

9. On the inquiry report dated 19.06.2018, opinion was sought from Board of Revenue, in pursuance to which Board of Revenue also gave its opinion on 22.03.2019, for dropping the proceedings against the petitioner.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, where the inquiry officer has also recorded finding in favour of the petitioner and even Board of Revenue had gave finding that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the petitioner, the matter was considered by the State Government and surprisingly by means of order dated 31.07.2019, the inquiry officer was asked to give his report specifically stating that on what facts guilt of the petitioner could not be proved during the said inquiry.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that said order on the face of it speaks of mala-fide on the part of respondents as the said order on the face of it is without jurisdiction and once inquiry officer has passed an order