Madras HC Upholds Surveyor’s Compulsory Retirement And Pension Cut For Sketching Nonexistent Land For Bogus Pattas

In brief

The question

Whether the disciplinary finding that the petitioner was complicit in the creation of pattas for non-existent land was perverse or otherwise liable to be interfered with under Article 226.

The court held

The Court answered both issues against the petitioner. Finding no perversity in the disciplinary decision and no disproportionality in the punishment, it dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.

It also directed

The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Surveyor, challenged the order imposing compulsory retirement for his alleged role in preparing a sketch and survey report that supported pattas for land extents said not to exist in the field.

pp. 1–2

The disciplinary enquiry found the charge proved, and the petitioner was compulsorily retired by G.O. (2D) No. 178 dated 22 July 2019. A subsequent order dated 6 December 2022 reduced his pension. He sought certiorarified mandamus to quash both orders and continue his pension.

pp. 1–2, 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the disciplinary finding that the petitioner was complicit in the creation of pattas for non-existent land was perverse or otherwise liable to be interfered with under Article 226.

pp. 4–6

ii.Whether compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved.

p. 7

03Law Applied

In judicial review under Article 226, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority to reappraise evidence or substitute its own findings; interference is warranted where the decision-making process is unfair, the finding is perverse or unsupported by evidence, or the penalty is shockingly disproportionate. The Court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 61; and The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478.

pp. 5–6

It also stated that a finding supported by some evidence should ordinarily be sustained and that judicial review concerns fairness of treatment, not the fairness or correctness of the conclusion.

p. 6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised a substantial challenge to the procedure followed in the disciplinary proceedings.

p. 4

The record, as described by the Court, showed that the petitioner prepared a sketch and survey report reflecting land extents of 89 and 93 cents, although lesser extents were available in the field, and that the sketch and report corresponded with documents relied on by the beneficiary of the pattas. The petitioner’s claim that he acted on the Tahsildar’s instructions and lacked authority to issue pattas did not displace the evidence of his role in the underlying survey work. The Court therefore found no perversity in the disciplinary finding.

pp. 4–6

Given the allegation concerned fabrication of pattas for non-existent land, it also found no shockingly disproportionate penalty.

p. 7