Mutation based on an unregistered partition deed, without more, does not constitute revenue official misconduct.

Basavaraj Ravoor, a Revenue Inspector, was accused of colluding with members of a complainant’s family to remove her name from the Record of Tenancy and Cultivation (RTC) on the basis of a partition deed.

Following an investigation, the Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act recommending disciplinary enquiry; the competent authority then entrusted the matter to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957.

Ravoor challenged the entrustment before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his application. The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, challenged that order before the High Court.

Whether the Tribunal’s order setting aside the entrustment of a disciplinary enquiry against Ravoor disclosed an error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the alleged removal of the complainant’s name from the RTC, in the circumstances, justified disciplinary action against Ravoor.

The Court considered Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as providing a remedy to challenge the removal of a name from revenue records.

The disciplinary process arose from a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and an entrustment under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957.

The Court also applied parity, reasoning that an employee facing the same charges as colleagues who had been exonerated was entitled to similar treatment.

The Court held that the complainant could challenge the RTC entry under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and noted that a civil suit was also pending.

It considered that the two other employees facing the same charges had been exonerated and that Ravoor had been singled out while his application was stayed.

The Court further found that mutation based on the unregistered partition deed, on the facts presented, did not amount to misconduct and had caused no loss to the State exchequer.

It therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s decision.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as having become unnecessary.