Mehattar Das v. Board Of Revenue
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
.^"
IN THS HIGH 00URT ©F>3tF©I©M<UM&SS BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT E'ETITI©NN©J6f ©P2001 BETVCEN .Ktehat'fcar Des s/o Kala8 Ran^ ^e<a ateoMfe 40 ye^irs^:i:
Resieent ef Vill^re 'K^smxil^ Tahsil Dabhra^ Disteict Janjti^ chainfa^ PE'PZTIONBR ^..^ \^>"
Y';'^ A_S,El \^ /) fh@ Boar<3 of Kfv^naey Ma^hya PjradesKy Qwalieir (KP)» !• ^•\':
ry Mditional Ccmmlstioner Bl.laspur ©ivistoR»:lBilasptirt ^VK, 3a Aaeitlonal Commigaioneir^ B'llas^u^ Divisloii^ Bil^spax''^ 4iy Sub E.Avision©3.©fifioer, (Kev®iiu@.) Salctstf Dlgtriet Jaiijgi.f'Champa* s1 Tahsilda? D^bhiraJ'.Disteiat ITaBj?gljr ©fo^npae RESPONDBNTS (( !^.
WRIT ^ETI'riON UNDER ARFE>XC?LES 22€/227 ©PTHE ( KIST$TUrDX0N @F INDIA
.^•"'
~^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR S.B.:
HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION N0. 361 OF 2001 PETITIONER Mahattar Das
Versus
RESPQNDENT The Board of Revenue and others l-ll-i--i!
lllg\ Appearaidbt IVI^ ^gpQQru, Advocate for the Petitioner.
iJljlgKishank Thakur, Goyernment Advocate _CSS1.
•?~'-f!f-~ IER ®|B^gi ber,2014) sm.s^ A.^VAv f€/'M 1.
Heard Learned Cd!
e Petitioner and the State.
/fi^y/MS 2.
The challenge ipr1|jiis/ap8yc@|(]n is to the order dated 04.03.1997 of the Tahsildar removinpBtSBStEtiWier from the post of Kotwar, affirmed ^cZi^cT W^ by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal and the second appeal before the Commissionerwas also dismissed on 30.05.2000. 3.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a complaint was lodged by one Goverdhan while the Tahsildar was visiting the vitlage that the Petitioner often talked to his wife on the road and would come to his house in his absence. The Police on investigation did not find the allegation to be true. Neither the complainant nor his wife appeared before the Tahsildar during hearing despite notice. The Tahsildar wrongly
4^ cast the burden on the Petitioner for producing the lady in question. There was no justification to hold that he had not maintained good conduct under Section 320(2) ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code. 4.
Learned Counsel for the State opposed the application submitting that the Court may not interfere with concurrent findings of facts by three forums.
5.
The Rule^ flp|p4| |Q|lg||SQ©|Dn,230of the C.G. Land Revenue Code j©|ar|jin|;iltfJ3pbintment,punishmBffti|ld|^ripval of Kotwars and J^tfltflities in Rule 5 provid©^/nteralia for dismiSiaiyta Kotwar if he ,|vas of a bad chara&te|l^|s;;l^i%ij^ipating in any kind'ytindesirable r:",^g;i?g^.:i activitiesor acting in qfT||J^|||||^hich, in the opinion ofthe appointing authority was not in publicffirft©r|s| 6.
The allegationjagaiitistIf|^4Pett|:ioner is that he was talking to the wifeof another on the slT8i3FSWwould visit her house in absence of her <-ic<y^ci <-ic<y^ci husband.
No other accusation has been made.
It is difficult to understand and appreciate as to how the aforesaid act of the Petitioner, even if it be true, constitutes a misconduct or makes him of a bad character or that it was necessary in public interest to remove him for that reason applying the standards of common sense and prudence regarding human behaviour. Human beings are social persons and does not live in isolation. Individual perceived standards of appropriate or inappropriate behaviour must be shunned while exercising statutory
^ powers in absence of which the order becomes arbitrary. The fact that the complaint could not be proved need not be considered at all. 7.
The orderfor removal as affirmed by the First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority are consequently set aside. The Petitioner shall stand reinstated in accordance with law. hle may petition, if so advised, for back wages which shall be considered appropriately after enquiry with regard to his status in the interregnum. 8.
,JiWg.v^jt1|®fftionisallowed.
- i!»t,yy 'xlil:.i..
Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Anu <-iC^^ W^