A mere error in jurisdiction without evidence of misconduct or personal gain cannot be termed as misconduct, making the employee liable to disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.1.2021 passed by the Special Secretary, Appointment Section-3, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow by which the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Tehsildar from the post of Deputy District Magistrate.

2. At this stage, it is relevant to note that during the arguments in the case, the Standing Counsel had opposed the writ petition on grounds of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999. However, as the petition was pending in this Court since February, 2021 and affidavits in the case had been exchanged, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Others, 1987 (4) SCC 525, the objections of the Standing Counsel regarding maintainability of the writ petition on grounds of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner were rejected and the petition was heard on merits.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Naib Tehsildar in March, 1996, was promoted to the post of Tehsildar in January, 2008 and on 11.5.2016, he was promoted as Deputy Collector/Deputy District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate. From 29.5.2016 to 3.9.2016, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut.

4. In 2013, M/s. A to Z Builders and Developers (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Builders’) through its Directors/Partners - Sri Jitendra Kumar and Sri Vinod Kumar filed an application under Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1950’) for exchange of their plots with the plots of Gaon Sabha. The plots of the Gaon Sabha, which were sought to be exchanged were pasture lands included in Section 132 of the Act, 1950, therefore, no Bhumidhari Rights could have accrued in them. On the aforesaid application, Case No. 03 of 2012-13 (M/s. A to Z Builders and Developers Ltd. vs. Gaon Sabha and Others) was registered in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The application was allowed by order dated 28.5.2013 passed by the then Deputy District Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut and by another order of the same date, Process for mutation in the revenue records was also issued. However, by order dated 11.2.2014, the then Deputy District Magistrate, Sardhana recalled his previous order dated 28.5.2013 and restored Case No. 03 of 2012-13 to its original number. Against the order dated 11.2.2014, Appeal No. 43 of 2013-14 was filed by the Builders. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, District Meerut, vide his order dated 27.8.2014 allowed the appeal, set-aside the order dated 11.2.2014 and affirmed the order dated 28.5.2013 previously passed in Case No. 03 of 2012-13. An application for mutation in the revenue records was filed by the Builders on 25.7.2016.

5. The petitioner, who at the time was posted as the Deputy District Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut, through a letter dated 4.8.2016 sought legal opinion on the aforesaid application and the District Government Counsel in his remarks dated 6.8.2016 opined that there was no legal impediment in implementing the order dated 27.8.2014 and consequential mutation in the revenue records. The petitioner, vide his order dated 11.8.2016 directed mutation in the revenue records implementing the orders dated 27.8.2014 and 28.5.2013, but vide the same order, also directed the Tehsildar to file an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh against the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner.

6. Subsequently, the Commissioner, Meerut Division, District Meerut vide his order dated 24.1.2018 cancelled the previous order dated 27.8.2014 and restored Appeal No. 43 of 2013-14 to its original number. The order dated 24.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner was challenged by the Builders before this Court in W