LEELADHAR PANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was a Forest Guard in Bhalaun Beat of Kosi Range, Ramnagar Forest Division, Ramnagar from 23.05.1985 onwards. He came to be transferred vide order dated 06.04.1991. The charge was handed over on 28.04.1991. One Gopal Ram had been transferred in place of the petitioner. It appears that following the complaints raised for felling of trees, a team of officers headed by Assistant Conservator of Forest carried out combing operation to ascertain the veracity of the complaints. This took place from 28.05.1991 till 01.06.1991. On the strength of the said operation, a report followed. This resulted in the petitioner being charge-sheeted. There were two charges against the petitioner. The first charge was related to the felling of 142 trees while the petitioner was Forest Guard. The second charge having been set aside by the Appellate Authority, the same need not detain us. Following the charge, an inquiry was held and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty by way of recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,390.00; petitioner was also awarded a censure. He appealed the said decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal; the amount ordered to be recovered by the Disciplinary Authority was reduced to Rs. 11,920.00. Petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition and the said writ petition was allowed and since the arguments were addressed revolving around the effect of the same, we deem it appropriate to extract the following portion from the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 3747 of 2001 (S/S) alone:

(2.) Apparently, on the basis of the same, petitioner was issued notice dated 27.08.2010. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order, by which the petitioner was again visited with the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,920.00. Petitioner carried the matter in Appeal. In the Appeal, in the first round, the Appellate Authority absolved the petitioner of the second charge and also reduced the amount of recovery. In second round, no relief was given and the Appeal was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said Claim Petition. It is accordingly that the petitioner is before us in Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows: