Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 125 (ORI)

Surendra Kumar Routray v. Conservator of Forests

2017-01-27

B.K.DASH, S.K.DASH

body2017
ORDER S.K.DASH, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) - Sri Surendra Kumar Routray, who was working as Forest Range Officer and retired from service w.e.f. 31.1.1999, has filed this O.A. with a prayer to quash the office order dated 30.4.1991 passed by Respondent No.1 as at Annexure-13 and Memo dated 22.5.1999 at Annexure-14 whereby Respondent No.2 communicated the office order at Annexure-13 to the applicant to deposit the disallowed amount of Rs.71,375.50 and cash of Rs.40.50 through bank draft drawn in favour of D.F.O., Boudh in State Bank of India, Boudh. He has also prayed for direction that he may not be directed to deposit the amount for disallowed vouchers. 2. The case of the applicant is that the applicant while working as Forest Range Officer, Kantamal (KL) range under the administrative control of the D.F.O., Boudh (KL) Division he took some advances during Kendu leaf crop year 1987 and 1988 to incur expenditure for procuring Kendu leaves to reach the prescribed target and submitted relevant vouchers to cover up such forest advances through the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Manamunda (KL) Sub-division under whose direct supervision the work was carried out. In the first part of 1989 the applicant was transferred to Madhapur Kenduleaf Range under Athamallik (KL) Division. While continuing at Madhapur KL Range, the DFO, Athamallik KL Division intimated the applicant that the DFO Boudh KL Division had mentioned in the LPC for recovery of Rs.236.24 towards management account and Rs.87,236.15 towards PL account of Kantamal KL Range upto 2/88 of the applicant. Against such illegal and arbitrary order for recovery, the applicant had preferred appeal under Rule 348 of the Odisha Forest Department Code before Respondent No.1 on 6.10.1990. The applicant had also approached the Tribunal in O.A. 1640/1990 challenging the order for recovery of Rs.87,472.39 paise. The Tribunal vide order dated 5.3.1991 disposed of the said O.A. directing the Respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months, pending which there shall be no recovery as per the disallowed vouchers from the applicant. Pending consideration of the appeal petition, respondent No.2 vide his Memo dated 28.3.1997 at Annexure-1 and Memo dated 11.8.1998 at Annexure-7 directed the applicant to deposit Rs.1,04,533.75 in the shape of Bank draft. Pending consideration of the appeal petition, respondent No.2 vide his Memo dated 28.3.1997 at Annexure-1 and Memo dated 11.8.1998 at Annexure-7 directed the applicant to deposit Rs.1,04,533.75 in the shape of Bank draft. Being aggrieved by Annexures-1 and 7 the applicant filed O.A. 2314 (C)/1998 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.1998 directed respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal petition preferred by the applicant within three months. Respondent No.1 vide Order No.80 dated 30.4.1999 at Annexure-13 disposed of the appeal petition of the applicant with a direction to deposit hard cash of Rs.40.50 and to deposit the disallowed amount of Rs.71,375/-. The said office order dated 30.4.1999 was communicated by Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 22.5.1999 as at Annexure-14. It is averred that the orders at Annexure and 14 are illegal and violative of codal provision in Rule 346 of Odisha Forest Departmental Code which reads as follows: “Withholding and disallowing of vouchers – 346 (1) : If a voucher is withheld for incorporation in the Divisional Accounts on account of inaccuracies or owing to suspicion of fraud, the explanation of the Range Officer and the Officer who has disbursed the amount to the voucher should be obtained. The Divisional Forest Officer after due consideration of the explanation shall order about its incorporation in part or in full or he may order disallowing the vouchers. The disallowed amount shall then be recovered from the person disbursing the voucher. An appeal against the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer shall however be with the Conservator if this is preferred within thirty days .The decision of the Conservator shall be final. In the event of a fraudulent voucher been disallowed in part or in full, further disciplinary action may also be taken. (2) Decision on withheld vouchers should be taken within 3 months, failing which all withheld vouchers shall be incorporated in the Accounts. The Principal CCF, KL, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide Memo dated 19.11.1990 at Annexure-10 directed all his subordinate officers for settlement of withheld vouchers within 3 months as per Rule 346 of the Odisha Forest Departmental Code. It is further important to consider that vide order dated 27.1.1998 passed in O.A. No.1679/1997 the Tribunal after discussing Rule 346 of OFD Code has held if no decision is taken on withheld vouchers within a period of three months, the withheld vouchers shall be incorporated in the Divisional Accounts. It is further important to consider that vide order dated 27.1.1998 passed in O.A. No.1679/1997 the Tribunal after discussing Rule 346 of OFD Code has held if no decision is taken on withheld vouchers within a period of three months, the withheld vouchers shall be incorporated in the Divisional Accounts. In the instant case no decision on withheld vouchers was taken within three months and therefore it will be deemed that they have been duly passed and accounted for the applicant is not liable to deposit the amount. 3. In the counter it is stated that the applicant was in-charge of Kantamal KL Range of Boudh KL Division from 30.8.1985 to 21.9.1988 and relieved from Boudh K.L. Division on 21.9.1988 on account of his transfer to Athamallick KL Division. The LPC of the applicant was sent to DFO, Athamallick KL Division vide Memo No.521 dated 10.2.1999 of DFO, Boudh KL Division mentioning Rs.236.24 as outstanding under Management account and Rs.87,236.15 outstanding under P.L. Account upto 2/1988 for recovery from the applicant. The same was duly communicated with the objection memos mentioning details voucher wise withheld and disallowed at the time of finalisation of his accounts, the details of which have been mentioned in the counter. It is further stated that before sending the LPC of the applicant his PL account for the period from 3/1988 to 9/1988 was not finalised. After finalisation of his PL account, the amount outstanding against him was shown in his LPC for recovery from him. Therefore, the applicant was asked vide Memo dated 28.1.1997 to deposit the said outstanding amount. There is no contravention of the provisions of OFD Code. The withheld vouchers were finalised in time after receipt of the account of the applicant. The orders of appellate authority are not illegal nor violative of executive instructions as well as codal provisions. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel. The applicant was in-charge of Kantamal KL Range of Boudh KL Division from 30.8.1985 to 21.9.1988 and on his transfer to Athamallik Division KL he was relieved on 21.9.1988. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the applicant was duly communicated with the objections memos mentioning the details voucher wise, the details of which have been reflected in the counter. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the applicant was duly communicated with the objections memos mentioning the details voucher wise, the details of which have been reflected in the counter. From the chart submitted by the respondents read with paragraph-3 of the counter it is clear that the vouchers submitted by the applicant to the proper authority is undisputed whereas the decision on withheld vouchers could not be taken within the period of three months as provided under Rule 346 of the OFD Code. Further more there is no indication in the counter before taking decision to withheld or to disallow the vouchers any explanation was called from the applicant. In absence of any explanation invited from the applicant there is no occasion for the concerned authority for due consideration of the applicant which is mandatory before taking a decision to withheld or disallow any voucher and to take follow up action in shape of recovery. In view of this the action of respondent No. 3 in disallowing the vouchers and the rejection of appeal as at Annexure- 13 and Annexure – 14 to the O.A. is contrary to the provision of Rule 346 of the OFD Code as much as, it is a clear case where the appeal had been disposed of in a mechanical way without application of mine, for which we are of the opinion that Annexures – 13 and 14 are not sustainable in the eye of law, for which both the orders are quashed. Further it is directed that for the failure on the part of respondent No. 3 to take decision to withhold/disallow the voucher within three months, so also without inviting any explanation before taking such a decision in terms of Rule 346 of OFD Code, withheld voucher shall be incorporated in the Divisional Account and the applicant is not liable to pay the amount as indicated in Annexures – 13 and 14. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. Send copies. No costs. O.A. disposed of.