ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition against the order dated 26/09/2011 passed by Respondent no.1 in the name and by order of Governor whereby a major penalty under Rule 10(viii) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Government has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed through Public Service Commission on the post of Ranger in the Forest Department. When the petitioner was posted as Forest Ranger in Pandariya Range from 10/1998 to 07/1999 under Baiga Pariyojana, some of the works were performed by him and on finding irregularities in the work done by him, a complaint was made to the Collector concerned alleging the irregularities committed by the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on direction of the Collector conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the Collector, wherein irregularities were found against the petitioner’s work. On the basis of said report, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kawardha Division vide letter dated 03/06/2000 noticed the petitioner to show cause, for which the petitioner specifically replied that Van Pal and Van Rakshak get the assigned work done which is verified by Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest) and after certifying the same, the work is done as per the expenditure then only the Divisional Forest Officer sanctions and disburses the amount to Area Officer (Ranger). Subsequently, one Rameshwar Das Mahanand made a complaint before the Collector, Kawardha, Forest Department (Forest Conservator) and also before the Lok Ayog regarding no action being taken on the basis of the enquiry report dated 06/05/2000. Again on the aforesaid complaint, Lok Ayog had not taken steps at that moment whereas the Conservator of Forest directed Divisional Forest Officer to make a detailed pointwise enquiry into the matter and as such the Divisional Forest Officer appointed Shri A.R.Bhaskar Sub Divisional Forest Officer, as the inquiry officer and directed him to submit his report. Simultaneously Collector, Kawardha also acting over the said complaint appointed a Committee of three members to inquire into the matter vide his order dated 05/06/2000 and the Collector had also constituted an Enquiry Committee for enquiring the same matter, which according to the petitioner was not informed to him. Simultaneously Collector, Kawardha also acting over the said complaint appointed a Committee of three members to inquire into the matter vide his order dated 05/06/2000 and the Collector had also constituted an Enquiry Committee for enquiring the same matter, which according to the petitioner was not informed to him. The enquiry officer Shri AR Bhaskar initiating the inquiry noticed the petitioner vide letter dated 14/08/2002 informing the petitioner about the complaint of Rameshwar Das Mahanand and directing him to be present on 19/08/2002 so that the spot inspection can be done and inquiry be made. The petitioner as directed appeared on 19/08/2002 and filed his detailed reply specifically mentioning that because of complaints of unknown persons he is continuously being harassed whereas he had already submitted his detailed reply earlier also and had justified the work performed by him during his tenure. The enquiry officer completed the enquiry after spot inspection and after recording evidence of witnesses came to the conclusion that during the enquiry it was found that in the entire sanctioned works of the Baiga Pariyojana, no complaint was found to be true and the sanctioned works have already been completed, as such he recommended for closure of the complaint. Subsequently, after lapse of 7 years on 09/04/2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest stating that a complaint has been filed in the Lok Ayog alleging that when the petitioner was posted as Ranger in Pandariya complaint against him was inquired by the then SDO (Revenue), in which various irregularities have been found as such why not the action be taken against the petitioner under CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 for violation of Rule 3 of the CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, upon which the Lok Ayog directed the department to take action against the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted his detailed reply before Principal Chief Conservator of Forest through Divisional Forest Officer. Narayanpur and denied the allegations levelled against him. The Lok Ayog had also sought information from the Collector, Kabirdham as a result of which Collector vide his order dated 22/04/2009 constituted a four member committee for inquiring the matter. The petitioner again submitted his detailed reply before Principal Chief Conservator of Forest through Divisional Forest Officer. Narayanpur and denied the allegations levelled against him. The Lok Ayog had also sought information from the Collector, Kabirdham as a result of which Collector vide his order dated 22/04/2009 constituted a four member committee for inquiring the matter. The Committee after inquiring the matter and making spot inspection submitted its report dated 14/05/2009 before the Collector through Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) wherein it was concluded that since 10 years have lapsed no technical report can be given and further that the calculation sheets and muster rolls are also not available, the Committee recommended that the earlier enquiry report dated 06/05/2000 be admitted and on that basis action be taken against the petitioner, but the copy of the report was even not supplied to the petitioner, it is only during the proceedings of Departmental Enquiry alongwith the charge-sheet the same was supplied as it was the sole basis for Charge alleged. Meanwhile the petitioner being well aware of the result and the arbitrary and high handedness of the respondents in the manner of conducting the departmental enquiry where the gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice was committed by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner being aggrieved filed a Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as W.P. (S) No. 6394/2010 but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 09/11/2010. The petitioner in compliance of the same filed his detailed representation before the Public Service Commission informing and justifying the charge alleged against the petitioner vide representation dated 15/11/2010 but the respondent did not give any heed to the representation of the petitioner and the same was neither decided nor considered but the respondent Public Service Commission without considering the representation of the petitioner consented to the proposal of the State Government for imposing major penalty, as such the Respondent No.1 after receiving the consent of the respondent Public Service Commission passed the impugned order dated 26/09/2011, whereby a major penalty under Rule 10(viii) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules 1966 of "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government" has been imposed, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the matter. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 26/09/2011 passed by Respondent No.1 (ANNEXURE P-1). 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Departmental Enquiry report dated 06/08/2010. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authority is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the fact and law. The petitioner has not been given proper opportunity to defend his case by not supplying the documents sought by the petitioner and for the same complaint the department has already conducted enquiry in the year 2002 wherein the petitioner was exonerated and the case was recommended for closure and without giving reasons for not accepting said report of the Departmental authority, the petitioner was punished on the basis of an ex-parte report which was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which is illegal and arbitrary and for the same complaint second enquiry has been initiated after lapse of more than 7 years. In the Departmental Enquiry proceedings two important witnesses have not been examined by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer did not examine the Delinquent Officer in accordance with Rule 14 (17) which is a mandatory provision by which delinquent officer may submit his explanation to the materials brought against him by the presenting officer. Only evidence of Shri A. K. Tiwari has been taken into consideration for establishing the guilt whereas Shri A. K. Tiwari long back in the year 2000 had conducted ex-parte preliminary enquiry in the complaint and only he proved his preliminary enquiry without substantiating the evidence on charges. The ex-parte preliminary enquiry cannot be taken into account to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The ex-parte preliminary enquiry cannot be taken into account to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Even otherwise in preliminary enquiry Shri A.K.Tiwari has clearly recorded a finding that minute enquiry requires to be conducted so as to find out the guilt of all Officers and so as to enable the department to take action against all those officers who committed fault and even otherwise in the subsequent enquiries it has been established before the Enquiry Officer that after 10 years it is impossible to verify the correctness of charges. The finding recorded by Enquiry Officer is completely prejudicial and without any substantial evidence and has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice therefore that report cannot be accepted as a report of Departmental enquiry nor can be made as a basis for passing the impugned order. The entire departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 14 (12) and 14(13) of the CG Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. In the Departmental enquiry there is even no compliance of Rule 14 (18) of the CG Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. Nowhere in the departmental proceedings it is considered that the petitioner was only involved in the performance of the works of Rs 10, Lakh Approx whereas he has been charged for works of Rs 20 Lakh approx. The petitioner was only posted from 10/1998 to 7/1999 i.e. for a period of only 9 months whereas the charge was for the period of works performed from 1998 to 2003 and all the liabilities of the said period has been imposed over the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of H. K. Lagar vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank and others, passed in WPS No.5521/2012, decided on 01.11.2021, Durga Bajaj vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPC No.1196/2014, decided on 25.03.2015, the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dharam Pal vs Chairman cum Managing Director AIR India and another, passed in WPC No.11793/2016 & CM No.46497/2016, decided on 17.01.2018 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another vs Madan Lal Tandon, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 461 . 5. 5. Learned State counsel submits that while working as Forest Ranger in the Pandariya Range from 20/10/1998 to 24/02/2003 the petitioner has committed financial irregularities and caused loss to the Government. The respondent no.10 received complaint against the petitioner in connection with financial irregularities committed by the petitioner and having received the complaint respondent no. 10 directed the respondent no. 7 to enquire into the matter. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction the respondent no. 7 got the matter inquired through respondent no.8 ie. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pandariya. The respondent no. 8 after conducting preliminary inquiry submitted its report to the respondent no. 7 vide inquiry report dated 06/05/2000 giving finding that mere paper formality has been done with respect to the construction work and has recommended that a detailed inquiry is necessary to take action against the petitioner. When no action was taken on the basis of enquiry report dated 06/05/2000, one Rameshwar Das made a complaint before Collector, Kawardha, Forest Conservator as also before the Lok Ayog. The Conservator of Forest directed the Divisional Forest Officer to make a detailed point-wise enquiry into the matter and as such the Divisional Forest Officer appointed Shri A.R. Bhaskar (Sub Divisional Forest Officer) as the inquiry officer and directed him to submit his report. Simultaneously Collector, Kawardha appointed a Committee of 3 members to inquire into the matter. The Committee submitted its report vide enquiry report dated 04/05/2009 and recommended that the earlier inquiry report dated 06/05/2000 be submitted and on that basis action be taken against the petitioner. On the basis of enquiry report dated 04/05/2009 the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to file reply within 15 days. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, therefore, regular Departmental Enquiry was ordered and Conservator of Forest was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Kawardha was appointed as Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in accordance with Law & Principle of natural justice. Reasonable opportunity of defence was afforded to the petitioner at all levels of inquiry. The inquiry officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner proved on merits on the basis of evidence and submitted its report. The petitioner submitted representation against the penalty before Public Service Commission. Reasonable opportunity of defence was afforded to the petitioner at all levels of inquiry. The inquiry officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner proved on merits on the basis of evidence and submitted its report. The petitioner submitted representation against the penalty before Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission consented to the proposal of the State Government for imposing major penalty. After receiving the co Durga Bajaj nsent of the Public Service Commission, the respondent passed the order dated 26/09/2011 whereby major penalty of "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment under the Government" was imposed. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.10 submits that no relief has been claimed by the petitioner against the respondent No.10, as such the respondent No.10 is a formal party in this petition. Even otherwise, a detailed enquiry has been conducted in the matter on the complaints against the petitioner and irregularities were found in the work done by him at the relevant point of time and he has been afforded ample opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, as such the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not disputed in this case that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the late petitioner for his work as Range Officer of Pandariya at the time of his posting during 20.10.1998 to 24.02.2003 and the charge sheet of the departmental enquiry was given to the petitioner on 24.11.2009 vide Annexure-P/15. Annexure-P/16 is a letter dated 11.12.2009 filed by the late petitioner. Annexure-P/16 is a letter dated 11.12.2009 filed by the late petitioner. By this letter, the petitioner demanded documents related to his work as under:- ^^vkids i= esa nf’kZr vuqØekad 01 ls 09 rd ds dk;ksZ ds ys[kk esa lek;ksftr leLr Áek.kd dh Nk;kÁfr Hkh vius cpko ÁfrmRrj gsrq eq>s Ánku djus dh d`ik djsaA fdlh Hkh LFkku ds dk;ksZ dk ewY;kadu] dk;Z djkus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh mifLFkfr esa fd;k tkuk pkfg;s Fkk tks ugha fd;k x;k gS ;g U;k; ds ekSfyd vf/kdkj ds fo:} gSA fdlh Hkh LFkku esa djk;s x;s feV~Vh eq:e dk;ksZ dk o"kkZdky ds mijkar ewY;kadu vR;ar gh dfBu gS rFkk ewY;kadu lgh ugha gks ldrk ijUrq ;s leLr ewY;kadu Ok"kZ 2003 ds ckn gh fd;s x;s gS] tks Áekf.kr ugha gks ldrs] D;ksafd 09@99 ls 24-04-2003 rd eSa ifj{ks= vf/kdkjh mRiknu Ik.Mfj;k ds in ij inLFk Fkk] fQj Hkh esjs Ik.Mfj;k esa inLFk jgrs ;s ewY;kadu dk;Z ugha fd;s x;s ,oa ewY;kadu dk;Z djus ds iwoZ Hkh eq>s lwfpr dj ewY;kadu ds le; mifLFkr jgus dk funsZ’k ugha fn;k x;k] ;g fopkj.kh; gSA vUr esa eSa Jheku ls iqu% fuosnu djuk pkgrk gaw lEiw.kZ Ádj.k }s"kiw.kZ Hkkouk ls esjs dfj;j dks ÁHkkfor djus dh n`f"V ls rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA vr% [kqys fny ls lEiw.kZ Ádj.k dks fo’ys"k.k djus dh d`ik djsaA** 9. Annexure-P/17 is a letter of Forest Conservator. It is clear from this letter that the late petitioner was posted in Pandariya from October, 1998 to August 1999 and on this letter, recommendation was made against the petitioner for enquiry. The petitioner filed Annexure-P/19 letter dated 24.02.2010. In this letter, the petitioner again demanded some documents. Annexure-P/20 is a letter dated 13.05.2010. By this letter, the petitioner again demanded record of office and work completion report. Annexure-P/21 is the reply of petitioner. Again he objected that Map Pustika was not supplied to him. In the enquiry report dated 06.08.2010, Charge No.1 was found proved against the petitioner. In this letter, the petitioner again demanded some documents. Annexure-P/20 is a letter dated 13.05.2010. By this letter, the petitioner again demanded record of office and work completion report. Annexure-P/21 is the reply of petitioner. Again he objected that Map Pustika was not supplied to him. In the enquiry report dated 06.08.2010, Charge No.1 was found proved against the petitioner. Vide Annexure-P/24, the petitioner again objected as under:- ^^ÁkjafHkd tkap esa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo ,ŒdsŒ frokjh us bu dk;ksZ esa vf/kdre chl Áfr’kr dk;Z gksuk Áekf.kr fd;k gSA ijUrq 'kklu us bu dk;ksZ ds fy, eq>s gh nks"kh Bgjk fn;k gS tks vuqfpr gSA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo ,ŒdsŒ frokjh us Hkh Áek.kdksa dk ijh{k.k fd;s fcuk gh leLr dk;ksZ ds fy, eq>s gh vkjksih fl} dj fn;k tks xyr gSA Áek.kdksa dk ijh{k.k dj rFkk ou laj{kd nqxZ ds i= Øekad&677 fnukad 28-01-2010 ls ;g Áekf.kr fd;k tk ldrk gS ijUrq esjs ckj&ckj fuosnu ds ckotwn vkjksi esa ntZ dk;ksZ ds Áek.kd eq>s Ánku ugha fd;k x;kA** 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra) held in paras 8 & 9 as under:- “8. Indisputably, no documents were supplied to the respondent along with the charge-sheet on the basis of which charges were framed. Some of the documents were given during departmental inquiry, but relevant documents on the basis of which findings were recorded were not made available to the respondent. It further appears that the list of documents and witnesses were also not supplied and some of the documents were produced during the course of inquiry. 9. Admittedly, show cause notice was served along with 17 charges, but all the documents were not supplied to the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order will show that when the Division Bench, during the course of arguments, asked the learned counsel appearing for the appellants whether documents viz. P-21, P-25, P-23, P-19, P-30, P-31 & P-32 were supplied to the respondent, on the basis of which various charges have been held to be proved, learned counsel was not able to demonstrate that the above documents were supplied to the respondent even during the course of inquiry. The Division Bench then following a catena of decisions of this Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. The Division Bench then following a catena of decisions of this Court came to the conclusion that the order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. However, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent was out of employment since 1991, a lump sum payment of Rs.5,00,000/-towards the salary would meet the ends of justice.” 11. This Court held in Durga Bajaj (supra) held in para 12 as under:- “12. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers MANU/SC/0258/2010 : (2010) 4 SCC 785 , the following has been held:-- “14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders. (Emphasis supplied)” 12. In his first preliminary enquiry, which was conducted in the year 2002, the petitioner was exonerated and the case was recommended for closure and without giving reason for not accepting the said report of the departmental authority and on the basis of another ex parte report, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. 13. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dharam Pal (supra) held in para 8 as under:- “8. A bare reading of aforesaid Regulation reveals that by recourse to said Regulation, de novo inquiry cannot be ordered. Simply because the fact of petitioner's exoneration in the Inquiry earlier held was not conveyed to petitioner, would not mean that the same Inquiry is continuing. It would be perverse to opine so. A bare reading of aforesaid Regulation reveals that by recourse to said Regulation, de novo inquiry cannot be ordered. Simply because the fact of petitioner's exoneration in the Inquiry earlier held was not conveyed to petitioner, would not mean that the same Inquiry is continuing. It would be perverse to opine so. Even otherwise, by no stretch of imagination, de novo inquiry can be justified by labeling it to be a further inquiry.” 14. It is clear from previous enquiry report that in previous report, the petitioner was exonerated and after 8 years of some complaint, a new enquiry was conducted at the behest of Lokayog and in the departmental enquiry, no document was supplied to the late petitioner. The departmental enquiry was conducted after 10 years of work done by the petitioner during the years 1998 to 1999 and when the petitioner demanded documents related to his work, as the defence of the petitioner was that the whole work was certified by the superior officers and after that payment was done but no document was supplied to the petitioner. 15. This Court in the matter of H. K. Lagar (supra) held in paras 29, 30 & 31 as under:- “29. It is well settled position of law that the Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceeding acts in quasi-judicial capacity and order passed has to be reasoned one and showing application of mind to the question raised by the appellant and if it is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. (See Divisional Forest officer Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao"). 30. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by observing that an Appellate Authority by deciding statutory appeal is not only required to give hearing to the Government servant, but pass a reasoned order dealing with the contention raised in Deokinandan Sharma the appeal. Union (See of India and others"). 31. 30. The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by observing that an Appellate Authority by deciding statutory appeal is not only required to give hearing to the Government servant, but pass a reasoned order dealing with the contention raised in Deokinandan Sharma the appeal. Union (See of India and others"). 31. Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the Disciplinary Authority, it may not be speaking order, but the Authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind in compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction particularly when the rules required application of mind on several factors and several contentions had been raised and he was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the Court reviewing its decision to ascertain as to whether it had applied its mind to the relevant factors which the rule required to do. (See Narinder Mohan Arya vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others.) 16. The petitioner filed writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No.6394/2010 vide Annexure-P/23, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on this ground that direction may be issued to the Enquiry Officer to act in accordance with law. Thereafter vide Annexure-P/24, the petitioner filed his representation before the Secretary, Lok Ayog, Raipur requesting for supply of documents, but the respondent authorities did not supply documents to the petitioner nor any document has been filed before this Court, which may show that before passing major penalty, the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity of hearing. Thereafter vide Annexure-P/24, the petitioner filed his representation before the Secretary, Lok Ayog, Raipur requesting for supply of documents, but the respondent authorities did not supply documents to the petitioner nor any document has been filed before this Court, which may show that before passing major penalty, the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity of hearing. In the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), it is held in paras 5, 6 & 7 as under:- ^^5- Ádj.k esa tkap vf/kdkjh ,oa ou laj{kd] fcykliqj ¼NŒxŒ½ }kjk muds i= Øekad@LFkk@1450] fnukad 06-08-2010 }kjk ÁLrqr fd;s x;s tkap Áfrosnu esa Ádj.k ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa] vfHk;kstu i{k ds lk{;ksa ,oa cpko i{k }kjk ÁLrqr fyf[kr Áfrokn mRrj rFkk ÁLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh }kjk ÁLrqr lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh ,pŒ,uŒ ik.Ms;] rRdkyhu ou{ks=iky if’pe Ik.Mfj;k ds Åij yxk;s x;s mijksDr vkjksi iw.kZr% fl} ik;s x;sA ou laj{kd] fcykliqj o`Rr fcykliqj }kjk ÁLrqr mijksDr foHkkxh; tkap Áfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij Á/kku eq[; ou laj{kd] NŒxŒ jk;iqj }kjk ik.Ms; ds fo:} xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dh iqf”V gksus ds dkj.k Jh ,uŒ,pŒ ik.Ms; ds fo:} i= Øekad@5264] fnukad 10-08-2010 ls nh?kZ ‘kkLrh vf/kjksfir djus dh vuq’kalk dh xbZA 6- jkT; ‘kklu }kjk Ádj.k esa NRrhlxढ+ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ¼vkB½ ds vuqlkj ^^lsok ls gVk;s tkuk tks fd ‘kklu ds v/khu Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, vugrkZ u gksxh** dh nh?kZ ‘kkfLr dk n.M vf/kjksfir fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA Jh ik.Ms;] jkT; ou lsok ds vf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k fu;ekuqlkj mijksDr n.MkRed vkns’k tkjh fd;s tkus ds iwoZ bl ckcr~ NRrhlxढ+ yksd lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj ls vfHker@lgefr ÁkIr fd;k tkuk vko’;d gksus ds dkj.k foHkkx }kjk fnukad 30-09-2010 ls NRrhlxढ+ yksd lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj ls vfHker@lgefr ÁkIr djus gsrq fy[kk x;kA NRrhlxढ+ yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk] lacf/kr vfHkys[kksa dk lw{ke :i ls ijh{k.k mijkar] i= Øekad@360@94@2010 thŒ,lŒ fnukad 03-06-2011 ls Jh ,pŒ,uŒ ik.Ms;] rRdkyhu ifj{ks= vf/kdkjh }kjk cSxk ifj;kstuk esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk cjrus ds dkj.k lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds ‘kklu ÁLRkko ij lgefr nh xbZ gSA 7- vr% jkT; ‘kklu ,rn~}kjk Jh ,pŒ,uŒ ik.Ms;] rRdkyhu ifj{ks= vf/kdkjh] cSxk ifj;kstuk ¼orZeku esa mioueaMykf/kdjh] mRrj ukjk;.kiqj½ dks NRrhlxढ+ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,ao vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ¼vkB½ esa of.kZr eq[; ‘kkfLr ^^lsok ls gVk;s tkuk tks fd ‘kklu ds v/khu Hkkoh fu;kstu ds fy, vugrkZ u gksxh** ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA** 17. It is clear from the impugned order that after enquiry report, the Chief Conservator of Forest by its letter dated 10.08.2010 recommended for major penalty and after consent of the PSC, major penalty of removal was imposed upon the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing before imposing major penalty and even no documents were supplied to the petitioner and even the enquiry was done after about 10 years of the work done by the petitioner and previously it was also found that no documents were supplied to the petitioner during departmental and even in the previous enquiry, the petitioner was not found guilty. 18. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the legal preposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have acted in violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of petitioner’s removal from service dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby set aside. The original petitioner is deemed to be reinstated in service from the date of his termination. 19. During pendency of petition, the petitioner died and his Lrs have been brought on record, as such it is ordered that the late petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of his deemed reinstatement till his superannuation. The petitioner's pension be calculated and from his death family pension be calculated and be given to the family members of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to calculate the pension, arrears etc. of the petitioner as well as other consequential benefits. Let the entire exercise be done within 4 months from the date of receiving of copy of this order. 20. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.