IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN WRIT PETITION No. 7577 of 2019 CHANDRASEN PATEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Baderiya- Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Supriya Singh- Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

ORDER (Reserved on : 09/09/2025) (Pronounced on : 17/09/2025)

The present petition By way of this petition challenge is made to order of termination as confirmed by the appellate authority vide orders Annexure P/8 and Annexure P/10 dated 29.05.2018 and 29.11.2018 respectively.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the termination order has been issued by the Collector on the allegation that the petitioner was posted as Junior data entry operator in Tahsil-Hanumana District Rewa at the relevant point of time and it was found that there are discrepancies in the computerized Khasra copies issued in respect to Khasra No. 353 and 11/2 at Village- Kolha, Tahsil-Hanumana District Rewa. When the matter was subjected to civil litigation then the civil court noted that there are discrepancies between copies obtained by the physical mode and e-khasra available electronically that had also been produced before the Civil Court, and therefore, the civil court ordered the authority to take appropriate action Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR against the erring officers. Thereafter it was duties of the authorities to have causes proper enquiry into the matter but the authorities have inappropriately excessively awarded penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner.

3. It is further contended that there was no fault of the petitioner in the matter because the updation of e-khasra has to be made upon instructions of the Patwari and the password of the computer operator is also operated by the Patwari which was duly accepted by Tahsildar in the course of enquiry proceedings. It was contended that the petitioner was required to carry out those corrections in the Khasra which are instructed by the Patwari and it has come during the course of enquiry that e-khasra is operated by computer operator upon instructions given by the Patwari who approaches the computer operator with the corrections made in the physical khasra and the Online data is updated in accordance with physical khasra at asking of and required by the Patwari, and not otherwise. It is contended that no common enquiry with the patwari was conducted in the matter so that the exact role of the petitioner viz-a-viz the Patwari could have come to notice and even before issuance of charge-sheet against the petitioner, the patwari has been let off with minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect whereas the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

4. By referring to the enquiry report, it is argued that even the Inquiry Officer has found that the petitioner is part of the conspiracy with the Patwari and this has led to inconsistent certified copies of same land being issued in as much as physical certified copies show some different situation while e- certified copy shows some different situation. It is contended that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR respondents were expected to maintain parity in the matter of penalty between the two employees who were found involved in the same transactions/events of misconduct. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and set-aside the impugned orders.

5. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the counsel for the state that the petitioner has been penalized after full departmental enquiry wherein due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is contended that inconsistency between physical land record and e-land record was duly established and admitted between all the parties. Even the civil Court before whom civil litigation had been filed has directed the authorities to take appropriate action in the matter and to find out the erring officer/employee in the matter and take a