Patwari must exercise due diligence in land records verification; disciplinary findings upheld on preponderance of probability without procedural flaws.

ORDER Hon’ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of this Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned Disciplinary Authority order dated 31.3.2015 (Annex.A/1), Appellate Authority order dated 29.12.2017 (Annex.A/2), Charge Sheet dated 18.8.2006 (Annex.A/4), Disagreement Note dated 21.2.2012 (Annex.A/6) and entire disciplinary proceedings, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and against the principle of natural justice and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant including restoration of pay with arrears of difference of pay and allowances.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant working as a ‘Patwari’ in the Government of NCT of Delhi was issued a charge- memorandum on 18.08.2006, which reads as under:-

“That the said Shri Hari Om Shokeen, while functioning as Patwari in the Notification Branch, District North West during the period 08.08.05 to 30.12.05 committed gross misconduct in as much as in order to extend undue advantage to a private party namely M/s P.P. Resorts Pvt. Ltd., he maliciously furnished a false report dated 21.11.05 to the Naib Tehsildar (Notification) stating that the land bearing Khasra No. 23/8, 23/9, 23/10, 23/13/1 of village Singhu, Delhi was not notified u/s 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, although a Notification u/s 4 of the LAC Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the said land had already been issued by the Lt. Governor, Delhi on 14.10.2005, which was published in the official gazette and also in the Times of India dated 08.11.2005.

Thus, the said Shri Hari Om Shokeen, Patwari failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant, thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964”.

3. The allegation against the applicant, as set out in the charge sheet, is that he maliciously furnished a false report dated 21.11.2005 to the Naib Tehsildar (Notification), stating that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 23/8, 23/9, 23/10 and 23/13/1, situated in Village Singhu, Delhi, had not been notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, despite the fact that the acquisition of the said land had already been duly published in the Official Gazette as well as in The Times of India dated 08.11.2005.

4. The applicant denied the charges. Consequently, an Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed on 03.10.2006. The said IO submitted his report on 16.10.2007, concluding therein that the Article of Charge against the applicant was ‘not proved’. The Disciplinary Authority, however, issued a disagreement note dated 22.12.2011 stating that it did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

5. The respondents forwarded the Inquiry Report along with the disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority to the applicant on 22.12.2011, granting him 15 days’ time to submit his representation.

6. The applicant submitted his representation dated 03.03.2012. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering