The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking quashment of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by Commissioner,

1

Signed by: SOUMYA

RANJAN DALAI

Signing time: 07-07-2023

17:51:37

Signature Not Verified

Division Bhopal and order dated 10.08.2018 passed by Collector, District

Rajgarh and the enquiry report dated 09.07.2018 prepared by the Departmental

Enquiry Officer, Rajgarh. He has further sought relief for reinstatement in

service with back-wages and all consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed on

the post of Patwari on 24.05.1997 at Tehsil Siroj District-Vidisha (M.P.)

Thereafter. the petitioner was promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector vide

order dated 30.01.2016 and by order dated 23.04.2016 was transferred to

District- Rajgarh. He was appointed by way of promotion on the post of

Revenue Inspector by Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement, Madhya

Pradesh. By order dated 03.03.2018, the respondent No. 3 has suspended the

petitioner from services on the ground of corrupt practices for causing

demarcation on the maps of Village-Titori, Motipura, Sondiya and Titori

without the order of the competent authority and further enquiry was caused

against the petitioner whereby the Tehsildar Rajgarh was appointed as

Presenting Officer and the In-charge officer, departmental enquiry, Branch

Collector Office, Rajgarh was appointed as enquiry officer. The charge-sheet

was issued on 20.03.2018 whereby the following charges were levelled against

him:-

a ) The petitioner has caused proposed demarcation by pencil on the

already existed red-inked Survey No. 58 of Patwari Halka No. 47 on the map of

village-Saredi without any authority.

b) The petitioner has caused demarcation at various survey numbers by

red ink on map of Patwari Halka No. 49 Village-Motipura without any order of

the competent authority and the demarcation of land bearing survey No. 65/3 of

village-Titodi changed to 1.075 hectare to 2.020 hectare.

2

Signed by: SOUMYA

RANJAN DALAI

Signing time: 07-07-2023

17:51:37

Signature Not Verified

c ) The petitioner has further prepared a new map of village-Gagorni

despite the fact that the old map was still with the Patwari and further in the new

map the signatures of the Patwari were not endorsed.

d ) The petitioner by causing the demarcation in the map of village-

Saredi, Motipura, Titodi and Gagorni has taken illegal gratification from the

farmers.

e) The petitioner has acted beyond his jurisdiction and has caused

demarcation.

3. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet and after examination of

the witnesses, an enquiry report was submitted wherein the charges No.1 to 3

and 5 were found proved. The charge No. 4 (d) was not found proved. On the

basis of enquiry report, the respondent No. 3 Collector Rajgarh passed the

impugned order dated 10.08.2018 imposing major penalty of dismissal from

services under (IX) of Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1966) . Against the said

order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2. The said

appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 28.03.2019. The said order was

further challenged in Second Appeal before the Revenue Board which was

dismissed by order dated 19.06.2019. The impugned order of dismissal from

service is mainly challenged on the ground that the impugned order of dismissal

from service passed by the Collector, Rajgarh is without jurisdiction and

competence. It is argued that the Collector, Dist. Rajgarh is not the appointing

authority of the petitioner. As per order dated 30.01.2016, the petitioner was

appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector by way of promotion by

Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement, Madhya Pradesh. The

3

Signed by: SOUMYA

RANJAN DALAI

Signing time: 07-07-2023

17:51:37

Signature Not Verified

Respondent No. 3 Collector, Rajgarh is an authority subordinate to the

appointing authority and, therefore, the order is contrary to th