Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Present petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 27.08.2013, passed by Collector, Almora whereby petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect.

2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that petitioner was posted as Patwari in Katarmal area, District Almora. He prepared form-11 for the purpose of undisputed mutation. Later on, it was found that mutation was not undisputed and petitioner has prepared form-11 wrongly. Tehsildar, Almora reported the matter to the Collector, Almora and Collector, Almora vide impugned order, placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect.

3. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first of all, preparation of form-11 for the purpose of undisputed mutation is not final. The person disputing the mutation can apply for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act whereupon concerned Tehsildar after obtaining due process of law can pas appropriate order and entry made by the Patwari in form-11 shall cease to have any effect after mutation order is passed by the competent Tehsildar. Therefore, no prejudice can be caused any of the parties by preparing the form-11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this is not a grave misconduct which can result into major penalty of dismissal, therefore, suspension was not desirable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that suspension order should not be passed in a routine manner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Subhash Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State supported the suspension order and argued that since petitioner was found having prepared incorrect form-11 to give benefit to the person who otherwise was not entitled, therefore, suspension of the petitioner seems to be justified.

5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Hari Ram Yadav and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1262, has held as under :-

“10. We find it difficult to agree with the said view of the tribunal. The mere fact that the impugned order of suspension does not contain a recital that the Governor was satisfied that it is either necessary or desirable to place respondent No. l under suspension does not, in our opinion, render the said order invalid. The law is well settled that in cases where the exercise of statutory power is subject to the fulfilment of a condition then the recital about the said condition having been fulfilled in the order raises a presumption about the fulfilment of the said condition, and the burden is on the person who challenges the validity of the order to show that the said condition was not fulfilled. In a case, where the order does not contain a recital about the condition being fulfilled, the burden to prove that the condition was fulfilled would be on the authority passing the order if the validity of the order is challenged on the ground that the said condition is not fulfilled. Reference, in this context, may be made to the decision of this Court in The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Limited v. The State of U.P. and Ors. (1962) 1 SCR 422 : (AIR 1961 SC 1381) wherein it has been observed :

“The validity of the order therefore does not depend upon the recital of the formation of the opinion in the order but upon the actual formation of the opinion and the making of the order in consequence. It would therefore follow that if by inadvertence or otherwise the recital of the formation of the opinion is not mentioned in the preamble to the order the defect can be remedied by showing by other evidence in proceedings where challenge is made to the validity of the order, that in fact the order was made after such opinion had been formed and was thus a valid exercise of the power conferred by the law. The only exception to this course would be where the statute requires that there should be a recital in the order itself before it can be validly made.”

6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case o