State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H. Mazumdar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act (1 of 1894)section 23 :[tarun chatterjee & v.s.sirpurkar,jj] market value of acquired property - burden of proof held, the burden of proving the true market value of acquired property is on the state that has acquired it for a particular purpose. where the landowner has been able to show, by the testimony and valuation report of the expert valuer, that the award of compensation passed by the land acquisition officer was inadequate, the onus now shifts in civil cases is that of balance of probability and not that of beyond reasonable doubt. thus minor inconsistencies in evidence are not relevant in civil cases in considering the question of discharge of this burden. if the state has been unable to produce any evidence at all to support its claim of sufficiency of the award, and the conclusion of the high court is backed only by assertions rather than by acceptable reasoning based on proper appreciation of evidence, the order of the high court cannot be sustained. section 23: [tarun chatterjee & v.s.sirpurkar,jj] market value of acquired property-held, proximity to develop urbanized area needs to be necessarily considered, while deciding on the compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, on the basis of evidence available. where there is evidence to show that acquired property is situated near highway and the state has not given any evidence to rebut this contention, the court cannot overlook the proximity of the acquired property to a developed area, and the high court cannot set aside the order of the reference court merely on grounds of minor inconsistencies and technicalities. the compensation provision of the act is in the nature of welfare stipulation and thus the state government must be just and fair to those whose land it acquires. section 51-a :[tarun chatterjee & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] market value of acquired land -valuation report by expert valuer based on his personal visit to site, map drawn after measurements and after deducing cost of depreciation - pwd practice and standard engineering norms adopted for deciding value - all such factors, held, made the report worthy of credence. he being expert in his filed he can rely on his knowledge, experience and judgment to come to conclusion regarding type of material used in construction and its source, it is not necessary for him on report of some other person. section 51-a :[tarun chatterjee & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] meaning of expression may held, section 51-a permits acceptance of the certified copy of the sale transaction, as produced by the witness, even without examination of the vendor or vendee. however, the use of the term may in the said provision shows that there is discretion with the court to the extent of reliance to be placed on the same. where the state has been unable to adduce any evidence to rebut the sale deed, reliance on the same and to consider it genuine is permissible section 54: [tarun chatterjee & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] appeal - jurisdiction of supreme court under article 136 of constitution - interference with finding of fact - principles regarding - held, on the question of exercising power to interfere with findings of fact by the supreme court under article 136 the principles that emerge, are (1) the powers of supreme court under article 136 are very wide. (2) it is open to supreme court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the high court if the high court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (3) when the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases fell short of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe and improper to act upon it. (4) the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the high court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. (5) the appreciation of evidence and finding results in serious miscarriage of justice of manifest illegality. (6) where findings of subordinate courts are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence or there are material irregularities affecting the said findings or where the court feels that justice has failed and the findings are likely to result in unduly excessive hardship. (7) when the high court has re-determined a fact in issue in a civil appeal, and erred in drawing inferences based on presumptions. (8) the judgment was not a proper judgment of reversal. where in a land acquisition matter, the evidence and material was duly considered by the reference court and the compensation amount was enhanced, there was no justification for the high court to interfere with the findings of the reference court and to set aside order of the reference court and to restore the order of lao merely on suggestions given by the state in cross-examination of the witnesses of landowner. the findings made by the high court were arbitrary and improper inasmuch as the high court had failed to consider the total lack of evidence adduced by the state and disregarded the witnesses produced before it without sufficient justification for doubting their credibility. such arbitrariness in findings had caused serious miscarriage of justice as against the landowner by denying him a just and reasonable compensation for property acquired from him by the state. - 189. good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. grant of pension and its continuance to a government servant depend upon the good conduct of the government servant. rendering satisfactory service maintaining good conduct is a necessary condition for the grant and continuance of pension. his failure in this regard leads to belief that he has conspired with shri k. he recommended that since the respondent had already retired from service a lenient view should be taken and reduction in pension to the extent of rs.k.n. singh, j.1. special leave granted.2. this appeal raises an important question of law whether a government servant after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation is liable to be dealt with departmentally for any misconduct, negligence or financial irregularities committed by him during the period of his service.3. necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are that m.h. mazumdar, the respondent was in the service of the state of maharashtra as supply inspector and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on september 1, 1977. after his retirement the respondent was served with a charge-sheet on october 16, 1978 containing allegations of misconduct and negligence against him for the period he was in service. enquiry into those charges was held and the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. on the conclusion of the enquiry the state government issued orders on december 4, 1982 reducing the amount of pension payable to the respondent by 50 per cent permanently under rule 188 of the bombay civil services rules. the respondent challenged the validity of the government's order by means of a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution before the high court of bombay. a division bench of that court allowed the writ petition and quashed the state government's order dated december 4, 1982 on the ground that the state government had no authority in law to take any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as he had already retired from service. placing reliance on a decision of this court in b.j. shelet v. state of gujarat and ors. : (1978)iillj34asc the high court held that the initiation of disciplinary enquiry and the order of punishment was unauthorised and illegal. the state of maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the high court.4. there is no dispute that the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on september 1, 1977 and charges were served on him on october 16, 1978 after about a year of his retirement. undisputably the proceedings against the respondent were initiated after the respondent ceased to be in service of the state government. the proceedings culminated into an order of the state government reducing the respondent's pension by 50 per cent. the question is whether the state government was competent to take action against the respondent by reducing his pension. conditions for grant of pension to a government servant of the state of maharashtra are regulated by the bombay civil services rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules). rule 184 provides for grant of pension admissible under the rules to government servant who is borne on its establishment. rules 188 and 189 relevant for our purpose are as under:188. government may make such reduction as it may think fit in the amount of the pension of a government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory.189. good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. government may withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct either during or after the completion of his service, provided that before any order to this effect is issued, the procedure referred to in note i to rule 33 of bombay civil services conduct, discipline and appeal rules shall be followed.5. the aforesaid two rules empower government to reduce or withdraw a pension. rule 189 contemplates withholding or withdrawing of a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct while he was in service or after the completion of his service. grant of pension and its continuance to a government servant depend upon the good conduct of the government servant. rendering satisfactory service maintaining good conduct is a necessary condition for the grant and continuance of pension. rule 189 expressly confers power on the government to withhold or withdraw any part of the pension payable to a government servant for misconduct which he may have committed while in service. this rule further provides that before any order reducing or withdrawing any part of the pension is made by the competent authority the pensioner must be given opportunity of defence in accordance to the procedure specified in note i to rule 33 of the bombay civil services conduct, discipline and appeal rules. the state government's power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings against a government servant even after his retirement is expressly preserved by the aforesaid rules.the validity of the rules was not challenged either before the high court or before this court. in this view, the government has power to reduce the amount of pension payable to the respondent. in m. narasimhachar v. the state of mysore : (1960)illj798sc , and state of uttar pradesh v. brahm datt sharma and anr. : [1987]2scr444 , similar rules authorising the government to withhold or reduce the pension granted to the government servant were interpreted and this court held that merely because a government servant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation he could not escape the liability for misconduct and negligence or financial irregularities which he may have committed during the period of his service and the government was entitled to withhold or reduce the pension granted to a government servant.6. the high court in our view committed serious error in holding that the state government had no authority to initiate any proceedings against the respondent. in b.j. shelat v. state of gujarat and ors, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the government servant for purpose of awarding punishment to him after he had retired from service. the ratio of that decision is not applicable to the instant case as in the present case the purpose of the enquiry was not to inflict any punishment; instead the proceedings were initiated for determining the respondent's pension. the proceedings were taken in accordance with rules 188 and 189 of the rules. it appears that the attention of the high court was not drawn to these rules.7. the state government had power to reduce the pension payable to respondent but having regard to the facts and circumstances, of the case we are of the opinion that the reduction of pension by 50 per cent was disproportionate to the charges proved against the respondent. two charges were framed against the respondent which are as under:charge no. 1.he has made a farce of an enquiry, collected 6 permits from the kolhapur central co-operative consumers stores including the permit no. 007314 issued to shri k.p. khatavane with malafide intention after passing a receipt thereof to the godown keeper, of the said stores on 12.6.1974 and thereby tried to shield shri k.p. khatavane and his sons baban khatavane from criminal prosecution.charge no. 2.he has deliberately and intentionally denied to have made any enquiry regarding unauthorisedly lifting of 10 bags of sugar on bogus or forged permit by shri baban khatavane even though he was deputed for such enquiry by shri a.r. mane district supply officer, kolhapur and he had actually recorded the statement of shri s.l. more, godown keeper of the said stores and shri hari santu pande, cart driver and also collected above mentioned 6 permits from shri more after passing a receipt thereof. by denying the above fact he has helped shri a.r. mane, district supply officer, kolhapur for suppressing the case. his failure in this regard leads to belief that he has conspired with shri k.p. khatavane and his son shri baban khatavane with some ulterior motive and abetted them in the disposal of sugar in black market.8. on conclusion of the enquiry charge no. 1 was found to have been established while charge no. 2 was partially proved. in his report to the state government the collector of kolhapur held that the respondent's action was helpful to shri khatavane to sell the sugar in the black market, and it amounted to a serious default on his part as a government servant. he recommended that since the respondent had already retired from service a lenient view should be taken and reduction in pension to the extent of rs. 1 per month be made. the state government accepted the findings and passed the impugned order reducing the pension by 50 per cent. in our view the reduction of pension 50 per cent was too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the respondent. the state government should have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent had retired from service and the reduction of pension by 50 per cent would seriously affect his living.9. accordingly, we allow the appeal partly, and set aside the order of the high court dated february 13, 1987, and the state government's order dated december 4, 1982 and direct the state government to reconsider the question of reduction of respondent's pension. there will be no order regarding costs.