Misra, J.@mdashThe petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.1.1985 by which stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on him. This order was initially challenged before the District Collector, Sawaimadhopur who pleased to dismiss it against which an appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Kota who upheld the order of the Collector. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders of the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Kota who had confirmed the order imposing the penalty.
2. The circumstances under which the aforesaid orders were passed arises out of an incident of theft of official record which was in the custody of the petitioner at his residential house at Hindaun since he was posted as a Patwari under Tehsildar of Hindaun. A Charge sheet was therefore issued against the petitioner stating that he was negligent in maintaining the official record of Sampat 2030 by retaining them in his rented house at Hindaun. A false case was also alleged to have been registered by the Tehsildar at the instance of the petitioner that the official record had been lost although the said record was found sold in the form of paper packets. The police had investigated the matter and submitted the final report that the case lodged by the petitioner and the Tehsildar was a false report as the record was deliberately misplaced by the petitioner himself.
3. The petitioner in response to the charge sheet filed reply and also appeared before the enquiry officer where he was allowed to place his defence. The petitioner inspite of ample opportunity of hearing was not able to prove that the theft of the official record did not take place from his custody and hence he was held guilty of negligence in maintaining the official record. An order was therefore, passed against the petitioner imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against which appeal has already been rejected as stated hereinbefore.
4. The counsel for the petitioner while assailing the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, Kota and the District Collector, Sawaimadhopur submitted that infact it is the police which had been negligent in recovering the record which was stolen and wrongly gave a final report that a false case in regard to theft of the record was lodged. But it could be noticed that neither the petitioner north Tehsildar had filed a protest petition against the submission of the final report of the police nor it could be proved by the petitioner that the official record was not in his custody. It is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that the record was lying in his custody and he was keeping it at his residential house which was a rented one. It is also an admitted position as per the petitioner''s defence version that theft took place in his house and the official record was stolen, but as per the evidence led before the enquiry officer as also in the police case, the petitioner in connivance with Tehsildar lodged the case before the police merely to cover-up the negligence of the petitioner who was not vigilant in retaining the record. Once it is established, as per the admitted case of the petitioner himself, that the record was in his custody and the same was misplaced, he cannot be allowed to absolve himself of the responsibility that he was not negligent in the up-keep of the record. No doubt the fact as to whether the petitioner deliberately misplaced the record with ulterior motive or not is shrouded in mystery, nevertheless it is well established that the record was in his custody and if the same has been misplaced it is difficult to hold that he was not negligent in the up-keep of official document which was his prime legal duty. If any motive of mis-placing of official record had been established the petitioner would have had to face a far more stringent penalty. Since the motive could not be established. It has been allowed to get away with only a penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.
5. In the wake of all these evidence and in the facts and circumstances of this incident, it is difficult to infer that the orders of the competent authorities which had passed the order of penalty was uncalled for. The writ petition is not fit to be entertained and consequently, it stands dismissed but without any order as to costs.
