SHIV RAJ SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVERNMENT Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

(2.) THE petitioner while working as Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sagar, certain allegations have been made against him in respect of tree cutting and making payment etc. In this regard, the revenue officials who were also involved in the process of tree cutting, permission etc., under the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, due to non -payment of certain amounts to the beneficiaries, the matter was subjected before this Court. This Court was pleased to direct the Government to fix responsibility on the concerned Officers. On 14.3.2005 the Government ordered to recover the loss of Rs.88,375.08 and Rs.74,985/ - caused to the Government by the petitioner, the then deputy conservator of forest and Smt. Radhadevi, IFS, DCF, respectively. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2005 the petitioner and Smt. Radhadevi, approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 14.3.2005 in W.P.No.3116/2006 and 13783/08. Both the matters were disposed of with certain observations relating to administrative lapses in issuing the order dated 14.3.2005. Thereafter, on 16.3.2011 Government held the petitioner responsible for the delay in making payments to the petitioners in W.P.No.9943/2000 and thereby causing loss to the Government and ordered to recover the amount of Rs.88,375/ - from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition before this Court in which this Court was pleased to observe that the "learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amount in dispute shall be deposited by his clients within four weeks from today". While recording the same, notice was ordered to the respondents. In the meanwhile, the Government issued a show -cause notice to the petitioner insofar as proposed recovery from the petitioner for which the petitioner had submitted his say on 15.4.2012. The Government taking into consideration the entire factual aspects passed an order recovering a sum of Rs.74,985.07 from the petitioner vide Annexure -P dated 17.04.2012. Consequently, the office of the Principal Accountant General (A and E), Karnataka, communicated how the recovery is required to be made namely by 15 instalments from June 2012 to the drawing and disbursing Officer of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Calcutta., The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Government dated 17.12.2004 (Annexure -P) and Annexure -R dated 28.5.2012 prosecuted the above writ petition. It is to be noted that the petitioner failed to implead the author of Annexure -R dated 28.5.2012 while questioning how the recovery is to be made from the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner has remitted the recovery amount during pendency of the litigation.

(3.) AT the outset, the above writ petition is not maintainable before this Court on the sole ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the petitioner who is an All India Service Officer. The proper forum for the petitioner is Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.