The Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal from service of a Zonal Officer, Rameshwar Dayal, ruling that a legal error committed while passing a quasi-judicial order in mutation proceedings does not automatically constitute misconduct or favoritism in the absence of evidence of extraneous influence or corrupt motive.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, presiding over Court No. 32, allowed the writ petition filed by Dayal, observing that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him was “faulty” and based on “no evidence.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rameshwar Dayal, was working as a Zonal Officer at Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. On February 16, 2022, he passed an order allowing a mutation application regarding a house (No. D-28/105) purchased through a registered sale deed. The order directed the recording of the vendees’ names in revenue records for tax collection purposes.
Following a complaint by one Raj Kumar, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against Dayal. A charge sheet dated December 12, 2022, leveled six charges against him, alleging that he acted with “undue haste” and conferred “undue favour” by failing to note that the property was a “public endowment” which could not be sold through a power of attorney. The department further alleged that Dayal ignored legal opinions and failed to conduct a mandatory spot inspection.
The Inquiry Officer found all six charges proved, leading to an impugned order dated November 16, 2024/December 5, 2024, which awarded the major punishment of removal from service.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, appearing for the petitioner, argued that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not declare title. He contended that the order was based on a registered sale deed which had not been set aside by any competent court. He further submitted that no oral hearing was provided during the inquiry, making the report ex-parte, and that the punishment was “shockingly disproportionate.”
On the contrary, the State and Municipal Corporation authorities argued that the petitioner failed to follow due process, disregarded the endowment character of the property, and ignored the legal opinion of the department’s advocate. They maintained that the proceedings were fair and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present his case.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the settled law regarding mutation proceedings, noting that they are “summary in nature” and serve a “fiscal purpose” to realize tax. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh and others (2025), the Court reiterated that mutation entries do not confer title.
On the issue of disciplinary action for quasi-judicial orders, the Court held that an illegal order does not itself become a ground for proceedings unless the officer acted with a lack of integrity, recklessness, or corrupt motive.
The Court observed:
“There is no charge that order passed in mutation application was influenced by extraneous factor or with any form of corrupt motive and in case the order was passed in good faith without any indication of dishonesty, entire disciplinary proceedings can be quashed.”
The Court further noted that the Authority concerned in mutation proceedings “cannot go beyond the registered sale deed to question it,” even regarding the vendor’s power to execute the deed, especially when the deed remains unchallenged in a Civil Court.
Citing Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India (1999), the Court stated:
“Any error by quasi-judicial officer in a particular judgment/order does not automatically imply misconduct or favoritism. The disciplinary action requires clear evidence of extraneous influence beyond legal mistake to avoid judicial independence.”
Decision of the Court
The Court found that the charges could not be proved as there was no legal provision making a Tax Officer bound to follow a legal opinion or conduct a spot inspection to verify the vendor’s competency beyond the sale deed.
Concluding that the ultimate decision was “vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence,” the Court held:
“Court finds that initiation of disciplinary proceedings was itself faulty… it is a case where even under a limited review jurisdiction, order passed by Disciplinary Authority can be interfered being a rare case.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned punishment order and directed that all legal consequences of this quashing shall follow.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rameshwar Dayal vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
- Case No.: WRITA No. 1456 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- Date of Judgment: April 17, 2026
