LEELAD HAR PANT Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Forest Guard and was posted in Bhalaun Beat of Kota Range in Ram Nagar Forest Division in the year 1985 and was relieved on 28th April, 1991 pursuant to the transfer order dated 6th April, 1991. It is alleged that the forest officials conducted a combing operation and, based on the said report, it was found that many trees were felled illegally during the period when the petitioner was posted and, accordingly the petitioner was charge sheeted. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegation and contended that no trees were felled during the time when he was posted. It transpires that the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who submitted a report and, based on the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 31S1 March, 1993 imposing a sum of Rs. 27,390/ - to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner for causing loss to the forest department. The petitioner was also censured for the said misconduct. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was partly allowed and the recovery of Rs. 27,390/ - was reduced to Rs. 11,920/ -. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said orders, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on several fronts, namely, that the petitioner was not guilty of the illegal felling of the trees and that there was no determination of any expert to ensure that the trees were felled during the period when he was posted at that place. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a haphazard manner and that no witnesses - were examined nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine or to produce his own witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that a c~py of the enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner and, in any case, the learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority had passed the impugned order without any application of mind, in as much as, no reason whatsoever has been indicated in the impugned order as to how he had found the petitioner guilty of the offence and in what manner the disciplinary authority had concurred with the findings of the enquiry report. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate order also suffers from the vice of non application of mind and no that reasons whatsoever were also given in the appellate order.