Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 906 (PAT)

Kishor Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2002-08-20

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In this writ application prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the Resolution dated 6th of November, 2000 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of censure, recovery of a sum of Rs. 52, 000/- from his salary and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, as a measure of punishment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner joined as Forest Range Officer at Chakulia on 22.2.1994. A news item was published in the daily newspaper Awaz on 9.6.1994 regarding misappropriation of cashew-nut seeds from Lugahara Forest afforestation area and its sale in open market for personal gain. Under the direction of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Singhbhum and Conservator of Forest, South Circle, Chaibassa enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer and from the statement of the Forest Guard and the Forester, the Divisional Forest Officer came to know that collection of Cashew nut seeds was done under the direction of the petitioner who was posted as Range Officer of the forest. It also surfaced during the enquiry that 26 quintals of cashew-nut seeds were sold in the market. Petitioner was asked to show cause and in pursuance thereof he submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Petitioner was served with memo of charges dated 18.1.1996 (Annexure-3) and the allegations against him were that he was negligent in performing his duties and responsibilities, got 26 quintals of cashew-nut seeds collected without bringing this fact to the knowledge of the higher authorities and sold 26 quintals of cashew-nut seeds illegally for his personal gain, causing loss of Rs. 52,000/- to the State exchequer. By notification dated 18th of January, 1996 (Annexure-4) Sri S.N.Trivedi, Conservator of Forest and Sri P.K. Verma, Divisional Forest Officer were appointed as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. Petitioner submitted his reply and after the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted its report dated 16.8.1996 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). The State Government on consideration of the report of the enquiry officer as also the show-cause filed by the petitioner decided to impose punishment of censure, recovery of a sum of Rs. 52, 000/- from his salary and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect by the impugned order. 3. The State Government on consideration of the report of the enquiry officer as also the show-cause filed by the petitioner decided to impose punishment of censure, recovery of a sum of Rs. 52, 000/- from his salary and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect by the impugned order. 3. It is relevant here to state that the charges levelled against the petitioner were dereliction in carrying out the duties and responsibilities, getting 26 quintals of cashew-nut seeds collected, keeping the higher-authorities in dark and selling the collected 26 quintals of cashew-nut seeds @ Rs. 20 per kilo for his pecuniary gain and loss to the State revenue. The enquiry officer has found the first charge levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. As regards charge no. 2, the finding of the enquiry officer is that there was illegal collection of cashew-nut seeds from the forest area and information was not given to the higher officers but it has not been proved that the said collection was done at the instance of the petitioner. As regards charge no. 3, the enquiry officer observed that a loss of Rs. 52,000/- was caused to the State exchequer on account of his negligence, but it has not been proved that the same was sold by the petitioner for his pecuniary gain. In this way the enquiry officer found charge no. 1 to have been fully proved and charges no. 2 and 3 partially proved. 4. Mr. Naresh Dixit appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not posted in the forest area during the relevant time and as such he cannot be held guilty for misconduct purportedly for an act which had happened prior to his joining. In this connection Sri Dixit has drawn my attention to paragraph 4 of the application and states that the petitioner joined as Forest Range Officer at Chakulia on 22.2.1994 whereas the allegation of collection of cashew-nuts and its sale is prior to that. Mr. Dutta, S.C. IV however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that the alleged misconduct pertained to the period prior to the joining of the petitioner is unfounded on facts. Mr. Dutta, S.C. IV however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that the alleged misconduct pertained to the period prior to the joining of the petitioner is unfounded on facts. He submits that the cashew-nuts were not collected in the year 1990 as projected by the petitioner but in fact it was collected in cashew-nut afforestation area no.90 and not in the year 1990. He points out that the petitioner is misconstruing the area 90 in relation to the afforestation area as the year. 5. Having appreciated the rival contention, I do not find any merit in the submission of Sri Dixit. What has been referred to in the memo of charge is not the year but the number of the afforestation area. Neither in the writ application nor in his earlier reply petitioner has averred that the misconduct alleged against him is in respect of the period prior to his joining. The number of the afforestation area in the memo of charges is not the year of the misconduct and hence the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misleading. 6. Mr. Naresh Dixit then submits that the enquiry officer having found the charges not proved, the disciplinary authority ought not to have awarded the punishment without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and indicating the reasons for disagreement. Mr. Dutta however submits that the enquiry officer has found charge no. 1 to have been fully proved and charges no. 2 and 3 partially proved and in agreement with the same the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order, which is permissible in law. 7. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned rder had disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer is unfounded on facts. From perusal of the enquiry report it is evident that the enquiry officer has found charge no. 1 proved against the petitioner and charges no. 2 and 3 partially proved. As regards charge no. 2 he has held that there was illegal collection of cashew-nuts from the forest area and the petitioner did not inform about the same to higher authorities. As regards charge no. 3, the enquiry officer has held that on account of negligence of the petitioner State suffered a loss of Rs. 2 and 3 partially proved. As regards charge no. 2 he has held that there was illegal collection of cashew-nuts from the forest area and the petitioner did not inform about the same to higher authorities. As regards charge no. 3, the enquiry officer has held that on account of negligence of the petitioner State suffered a loss of Rs. 52,000/- but the charge that the petitioner sold it for his pecuniary gain has not been established. From that it cannot be said that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges by the enquiry officer and in that view of the matter, disciplinary authority was not obliged to give him any notice or reason for disagreement before passing the order of punishment. 8. Both the submissions having no substance, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed accordingly.