Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 645 (UTT)

Leelad har Pant. v. Conservator of Forest

2009-12-24

TARUN AGARWALA

body2009
Judgment Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The petitioner is a Forest Guard and was posted in Bhalaun Beat of Kota Range in Ram Nagar Forest Division in the year 1985 and was relieved on 28th April, 1991 pursuant to the transfer order dated 6th April, 1991. It is alleged that the forest officials conducted a combing operation and, based on the said report, it was found that many trees were felled illegally during the period when the petitioner was posted and, accordingly the petitioner was charge sheeted. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegation and contended that no trees were felled during the time when he was posted. It transpires that the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who submitted a report and, based on the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 31S1 March, 1993 imposing a sum of Rs. 27,390/- to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner for causing loss to the forest department. The petitioner was also censured for the said misconduct. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was partly allowed and the recovery of Rs. 27,390/ - was reduced to Rs. 11,920/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said orders, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on several fronts, namely, that the petitioner was not guilty of the illegal felling of the trees and that there was no determination of any expert to ensure that the trees were felled during the period when he was posted at that place. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a haphazard manner and that no witnesses- were examined nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine or to produce his own witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a haphazard manner and that no witnesses- were examined nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine or to produce his own witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that a c~py of the enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner and, in any case, the learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority had passed the impugned order without any application of mind, in as much as, no reason whatsoever has been indicated in the impugned order as to how he had found the petitioner guilty of the offence and in what manner the disciplinary authority had concurred with the findings of the enquiry report. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate order also suffers from the vice of non application of mind and no that reasons whatsoever were also given in the appellate order. 4. The learned Brief Holder fairly conceded that the provision of Section 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 is applicable to the petitioner's case which is extracted below : "55. B (a) Whenever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty of (i) censure, or (ii) stoppage at an efficiency-bar: Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority imposes the penalty of(i) withholding increments in the time scale at stages where there is no efficiency bar, or (ii) recovery from payoff the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. . Formal proceeding embodying a statement of the offence or fault, the explanation of the person concerned and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded: Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings in cases where a Government servant's increment in the time scale of his pay at any stage other than an efficiency bar is stopped due to his integrity remaining uncertified." 5. A perusal of Rule 55-B (b) indicates that the reasons for punishment shall be recorded. 6. A perusal of Rule 55-B (b) indicates that the reasons for punishment shall be recorded. 6. Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Rule is not applicable but without going into the veracity as to whether these Rules were applicable or not, the principles of natural justice requires that reasons has to be recorded while imposing punishment upon an incumbent. In Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2009 (2) SCC 570 the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority to record reasons in the order imposing punishment since it entails civil consequences. The Supreme Court held : "23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. 7. In the present case, the Court finds that not a single reason has been indicated in the impugned order while imposing censure and recovery of the amount against the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that the disciplinary authority had concurred with the• findings of the Enquiry Officer. 8. Consequently, on this short point the impugned orders, being violative of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It is open to the disciplinary authority to proceed and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.