Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Balram Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And others – Respondents
WRIT -A No. -10448 of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava
The applicability of Section 225 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and the limited scope for judicial review of preliminary fact finding reports.
Headnote:
Departmental Enquiry - U.P. Revenue Code - Section 225 - Summary: The court examined the preliminary fact finding report against a Tehsildar and the applicability of Section 225 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which protects officers from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in good faith in the course of their duties. The court held that the report could not be judicially reviewed at this stage and declined to interfere, stating that the petitioner could question the proceedings if a regular enquiry was initiated. The court cited relevant judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Tehsildar, challenged a preliminary fact finding report submitted on a complaint by the Tehsil Bar Association.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere at this stage, stating that the report could not be judicially reviewed and that the petitioner could question the proceedings if a regular enquiry was initiated.
Issues: Applicability of Section 225 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and the judicial review of the preliminary fact finding report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the report could not be judicially reviewed at this stage and declined to interfere, citing relevant judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed at this stage, with the petitioner given the liberty to question proceedings if a regular enquiry was initiated.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner who has been working as a Tehsildar, Tehsil Jalaun, District Jalaun, is aggrieved by some departmental preliminary fact finding report submitted on 03.02.2023 on the complaint made by the Tehsil Bar Association.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the bar created under Section 225 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, no such enquiry was tenable in the matter of conduct of the petitioner in discharge of official duty. It is further submitted that this internal departmental enquiry may be a preliminary fact finding enquiry which has been forwarded to the Board of Revenue upon which he apprehends that the competent authority may set into motion a regular departmental enquiry. Learned counsel in order to advance his argument has relied upon a number of judgments by the Supreme Court as Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar versus Union of India and others: 1999 VII Supreme Court Cases 409, (2007) 4 SCC 247:Ramesh Chandra Singh versus High Court of Allahabad and another and recent judgment by a division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No.40 of 2023, Anjali Chaurasia versus State of U.P. and others.
4. Per contra, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that this is not the stage to interfere in the matter as the preliminary fact finding report has yet not been taken into consideration by the competent authority to set into motion any regular enquiry. It is submitted that mere apprehension cannot be a ground to move to this Court invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the provisions as contained under Section 225 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may also not be attracted at this stage. He argued that writ petition is premature.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the record and even going through the report which has been impugned here in this petition, I find that on the basis of certain complaints made against the petitioner, the competent authority in the Revenue Department held some preliminary fact finding enquiry in which a report was submitted holding the petitioner, prima facie, guilty of the allegations made in the complaint.
6. The question as to whether this preliminary fact finding enquiry report at this stage can be gone into on the ground that the allegations made were bald allegations and had no basis and that there was no evidence available, in view of the fact that the allegations were regarding official discharge of duty by the petitioner in the capacity of Tehsildar of the tehsil concerned in view of the provisions as contained under Section 225 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
7. I proceed to first examine the provisions as contained under Sections 225 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The provisions for better appreciation as contained under Section 225 of the U.P. Revenue Code are reproduced hereunder:-
"(1) No officer or servant of the State Government shall be liable in any civil or criminal proceeding in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Code or any rules made thereunder, if the act was done in good faith and in the course of execution of the duties or the discharge of functions imposed by or under this Code.
(2) No suit or other proceeding shall lie against the State Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused or any injury suffered or likely to be suffered by virtue of any provisions of this Code or by anything in good faith done or intended to be in pursuance of the provisions of this Code or any rules made thereunder."
8. Upon a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is very much clear that an officer in discharge of his administrative and quasi judicial function has been protected from any criminal or civil proceedings being drawn in respect of any act done by him. In other wor
