Read Time: 06 minutes
SDO claimed that though there were two orders, the one that was not signed by him got uploaded on the official website by mistake
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue), UP government to set up a high level inquiry against a Sub-Divisional Officer who two different orders on merits in the same case.
The bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra ordered the Collector, Deoria to call upon Yogesh Kumar Gaur, who was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoria in August last year to submit his written defence on or before January 31, 2024.
“The Collector shall also call upon the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) to submit his report in the matter within the same time,” the bench ordered.
Court further directed that the Collector on the basis of aforesaid defence and report, shall prepare his own independent report by the end of February, 2024 and shall forward the same to the Principal Secretary (Revenue).
It added that the Principal Secretary (Revenue) will ensure that said inquiry is completed strictly in accordance with law, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned, by the end of May, 2024.
The high court will hear the matter next on July 1, 2024.
The order was passed in a writ petition filed by one Shiv Narayan Tiwari seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Collector, District Deoria to inspect the file in the case concerning the petitioner thoroughly in which two final orders on the same file were passed on August 17, 2023 and take appropriate action.
The high court noted that it had been stated by the Sub-Divisional Officer that though two different orders were passed by him in the same case, one order which could not be signed, was erroneously uploaded on the website of Board of Revenue and later on, the same was deleted and a different order of the same date was released.
“Both the said orders were passed in the same case for correction of entries and on perusal of the same, the Court finds that they are exactly in contrast to each other, that is to say that in one of the orders, the claim of the petitioner Shiv Narayan Tiwari has been accepted and direction for correction of entries has been issued, whereas in the second order of the same date, the petitioner's case has been dismissed on merits recording finding that there is no justification to correct entries,” the high court highlighted.
The court had been apprised that an inquiry has been set up against the Reader and Revenue Ahalmad and the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has been nominated as the Inquiry Officer.
To this, the court emphasised that no order could be uploaded on or deleted from the concerned website without directions or knowledge of the officer concerned.
Neither a Reader of the Court nor Revenue Ahalmad can have any role in pronouncing two different orders on merits in the same case. At the most, their duties/ responsibilities can be confined to ministerial/ administrative work but certainly not to exercise judicial/ quasi judicial function, court held.
Therefore, court opined that a detailed inquiry was required in the matter.
Case Title: Shiv Narayan Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Please Login or Register
