No Negative Parity: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Municipal Official's Plea Claiming Co-Signatory To Illegal Title-Deeds Was Not Acted Against
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea by Chairperson of a Municipal Council suspended for allegedly misusing her position to "illegally" grant title-deeds in favour of persons known to her, observing that the official cannot claim immunity on the ground that no action was taken against another official who had also signed the title deeds. The bench of Rajasthan High Court rejected...
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea by Chairperson of a Municipal Council suspended for allegedly misusing her position to "illegally" grant title-deeds in favour of persons known to her, observing that the official cannot claim immunity on the ground that no action was taken against another official who had also signed the title deeds.
The bench of Rajasthan High Court rejected the petition filed by the Chairperson, Nagar Parishad, Karaulli against her suspension in relation to allegations of misuse of her position in issuing certain pattas (title deed to a property) to her acquaintances.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a plea by a Chairperson, Nagar Parishad, Karaulli challenging–her suspension, the judicial enquiry conducted against her under Section 39 (Removal of member) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed but instead powers were delegated to the subordinate authorities.
Rejecting the petitioner's argument that no action was taken against other official who had also signed the patta the court said:
"By advancing the above arguments, the petitioner is claiming “negative parity”. If any wrongdoing has been committed by a person or more i.e. the petitioner and the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Karauli while issuing pattas illegally, by misusing their power and postion, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim immunity on the ground that no action has been taken against the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Karauli, who was also a counter signatory of the pattas. This Court finds no substances in the argument of the petitioner that the respondents have followed the practice of pick and choose while taking action against the petitioner alone. Such argument of the petitioner is legally not sustainable. If the pattas have been issued illegally, while giving benefits to the petitioner and the same have been counter-signed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Karauli, stern legal action must be taken against him as well strictly in accordance with law, after affording him a fair opportunity of hearing, complying the principles of natural justice".
The court further observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not meant to "perpetuate any illegality" even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases.
"If any wrong is committed by the authorities, then in similar matter it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. This Court trusts and believes that appropriate action would be taken by the respondents against all the erring Officers who are involved in the incident of issuing illegal pattas in contravention of the Rules," the court added.
The petitioner argued that as per proviso to Section 39 while the State Government was supposed to conduct the enquiry through existing or retired office not below the rank of State Level Services, the Additional Collector appointed for the same, delegated it to a Tehsildar.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that delegated power could not be further delegated, and since the order of suspension was solely based on the report submitted by the sub-delegatees, which was not allowed, the order in itself was also not legally sustainable and the entire action initiated against the petitioner stood vitiated.
Furthermore, it was argued that petition was a co-signatory to the title-deeds in question along with the Commissioner, Municipal Council, against whom no action was initiated neither was he placed under suspension.
The State argued that the principle of delegatus non protest delegare is not applicable in the administrative actions or ministerial acts rather this principle applies to statutory judicial and quasi-judicial functions. It was argued that petitioner cannot be allowed to claim negative parity on the ground that she was simply a co-signatory of the pattas. It was also argued that the petitioner was also a beneficiary in the matter.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused section 39 of the Act, and observed that the proviso to Section 39(1) revealed that an order of removal of member shall be passed by the State after holding an enquiry as it considered necessary to make either by itself; or through existing or retired office not below the rank of State level Services; or by authority as it may direct.
Hence, it was not necessary that the enquiry was always by an officer of the State Service authority.
Furthermore, the Court opined that it was very clear from the records that the Additional Collector was never appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Rather, he was simply asked to submit a fact finding report.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the Additional Collector was not appointed as the 'enquiry officer' for the purpose of conducting enquiry against the petitioner. He was simply asked to collect 'the fact finding report', which he did by obtaining the same from his subordinate Officers and after receipt of the aforesaid fact finding report, order/report dated 05.06.2024 was prepared and sent by him to the Government for further examination of the matter through audit, detailed inquiry, etc.”
The Court also made a reference to the coordinate bench decision in Narendra Kumar Khodaniya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. to state, the principle of “delegated power cannot be further delegated” was not applicable in administrative action or ministerial act, rather to statutory judicial and quasi-judicial function.
In this light, it was held that since there was no enquiry under Section 39(1), the summary report obtained from the subordinate authorities could not be invalid and the entire process could not be vitiated on that ground.
The plea was dismissed.
Title: Rasida Khatoon v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 248