IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial officers can face disciplinary action for misconduct, but not for mere errors in judgment, emphasizing the need for judicial independence.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal)

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants - State of U.P. & its Officers and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the sole respondent by Sri Ratnesh chandra, Advocate is taken on record.

3. The instant intra-Court Appeal filed by the State is delayed by 53 days as on 07.11.2024.

4. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the applicants-appellants seeking condonation of delay.

5. In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. The appeal may be assigned a regular number.

Order on memo of Special Appeal

7. By means of the instant intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the appellants have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 08.08.2024 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.6001 of 2024, whereby a charge-sheet dated 08.09.2022 and a supplementary charge-sheet dated 29.11.2022 issued against the respondent have been quashed and the Inquiry Officer has been mandated not to proceed further in pursuance of the aforesaid charge sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet.

8. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as a Deputy Collector in the year 2015 and by means of an order dated 23.10.2021, she was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate/ Deputy Collector, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi. An Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2022 placed her under suspension in contemplation of departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya was appointed as Inquiry Officer as to conduct inquiry against the respondent. Upon a representation dated 05.08.2022 submitted by the respondent, the Inquiry Officer was changed and Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj was appointed the Inquiry Officer.

9. On 08.09.2022, the Inquiry Officer issued a charge-sheet containing as many as eleven charges against the respondent. A supplementary charge-sheet containing two additional charges was issued to her on 29.11.2022.

10. An office memorandum dated 29.05.2023 was issued during pendency of the enquiry whereby her suspension was revoked in furtherance of a representation dated 03.03.2023.

11. Charge Nos.1 to 10 related to the numerous suits for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, some of which had been decided without issuing the mandatory 60 days’ notice to the State/Gaon Sabha under Section 80 C.P.C. and Section 106 Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, through some suits Banjar Lands or Naveen Parti Lands were declared to have vested in certain private individuals on the basis of their illegal possession against the relevant legal provisions and evidence in order to provide undue benefit to them, in some cases public utility lands vesting in the State were recorded in the revenue records as Bhoomidhari Land of certain private individuals, in some cases Forest land was recorded in the name of private individuals in illegal occupation thereof and numerous cases were decided without hearing the version of the State/ Gaon Sabha, against the evidence on record and established legal position, in a clandestine manner after coming into direct contact with the litigants outside the Courts and, thus, illegal orders were passed by recording wrong facts in order to provide benefit to the claimants, thereby causing loss of public property.

12. The first charge in the supplementary charge-sheet was that the respondent had misused her position and the judicial process for granting undue benefit t