Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 68 (HP)

Rattan Chand v. State of H. P

2013-01-10

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. By means of this writ petition, following relief has been claimed:- “ i) That the impugned order of dismissal contained in Annexure P-13 dated 19.3.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 and order Annexure P-15 dated 31.03.2012, passed by the respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed and set-aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate back the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. At the time of dismissal from service vide impugned order Annexure P-13, the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in Forest Beat, Kalbog of Kotkhai Forest Range under Theog Forest Division. On a complaint qua illicit felling, received in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Theog, a team headed by Range Forest Officer, Kotkhai was constituted for conducting inspection of the forest and to find out illicit felling. The said team inspected the forest and found stumps of illicitly felled Deodar and Kail trees and submitted its report accordingly. On the basis thereof FIR No.15/10 under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 379 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and 13-B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be registered in the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla. The petitioner is one of the accused persons. Simultaneously, he alongwith Giteshwar Singh, Block Officer was proceeded against departmentally and charges Annexure P-7 (colly) common in nature were framed against both of them, which read as follows:- Article of Charges. 1. Gross dereliction and negligence in the discharge of official duties with a dishonest motive. 2. Un-becoming of a Government servant causing a financial loss to Government amounting to Rs.89,62,083/- due to illicit felling of 164 trees of Deodar/Kail. 3. Inquiry against both of them was conducted by Shri H.K. Gupta, Assistant Conservator of Forests, who was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report Annexure P-10 to the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Conservator of Forest, Shimla, the 3rd respondent. The disciplinary authority without forwarding the inquiry report to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to him for submission of written representation, if any, against the inquiry report, straightway imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect vide impugned order Annexure P-13. The disciplinary authority without forwarding the inquiry report to the petitioner and affording an opportunity to him for submission of written representation, if any, against the inquiry report, straightway imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect vide impugned order Annexure P-13. The petitioner though 2nd preferred an appeal to the respondent vide memorandum of appeal, Annexure P-14, the same, however, was rejected vide order Annexure P-15. Shri Giteshwar Singh, aforesaid who was also charge-sheeted alongwith the petitioner and held liable by the inquiry officer vide the same inquiry report as well as removed from service under the similar circumstances on rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority, approached this Court by filing civil writ petition No.4827 of 2012. The stand of the respondent-State in that writ petition was identical in nature as in the present writ petition. This Court taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances and also the provisions contained under CCS(CCA) Rules as well as law laid down by this Court and also by the Apex Court while setting aside the order of his dismissal from service and also the order whereby the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by said Shri Giteshwar Singh against his dismissal from service, has directed the respondents to re-instate him forthwith and conduct de-novo inquiry from the stage of supplying him the copy of inquiry report as required under Rule 15(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules and pass appropriate order after taking into consideration the representation, if any, made against the inquiry report by him. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in Giteshwar Singh’s case, supra, reads as follows:- “In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 19.3.2011 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect and impugned order 2nd Annexure P-6 dated 31.3.2012 whereby the 2 respondent while upholding the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner has rejected the appeal, are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall re-instate the petitioner forthwith on the receipt of the copy of this 3rd judgment. The respondents shall re-instate the petitioner forthwith on the receipt of the copy of this 3rd judgment. Thereafter, the 3 respondent being the disciplinary authority shall permit the petitioner to make representation against the inquiry report dated 21.4.2011, Annexure P-4 and after taking into consideration the representation so made by him, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove in this judgment. The said respondent may place the petitioner under suspension after reinstatement during the pendency of the de-novo inquiry, if so advised.” 4. The issue to the above extent is thus covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Giteshwar Singh’s case. Consequently, the impugned order, Annexure P-13 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, is quashed and set aside. The order Annexure P-15 passed by the appellate authority is also quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner forthwith on production of a copy of this judgment and that of in Giteshwar Singh’s case, supra. The disciplinary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent shall permit the petitioner to make representation against the inquiry report, dated 21.4.2011, Annexure P-10 and after taking into consideration the representation, if any, made by him, pass appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in Giteshwar Singh’s case, supra,. The 3rd respondent shall be at liberty to place the petitioner again under suspension till the final action in the matter is taken, if so advised. 5. With the above observations, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of. There is no order as to costs.