BHANA GUMAN PATEL Vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-Beat Guard who has been ordered to be dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 16/06/1990 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Vyara, resondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) The short facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is an Adivasi and a native of Varjakhan village of Vyara Taluka. He was appointed as a Beat Guard on 18/12/1961. He worked as Depot Guard, Anaval from 1966 to 1970. From village Anaval, he was order of the to be transferred to Varjakhan i.e., his native place. It is the case of the petitioner that he had made a representation to the Divisional Forest Officer, Valsad which has been annexed to the petition as Annexure 'A' on 11/12/1970 that he may not be transferred to his native place in view of the circumstances mentioned in the said representation. However, in the affidavit-in-reply, it is the case of the respondents that they have not received such representation. It appears that some illicit cutting of trees took place from the forest area in which the petitioner was serving and chargesheet was issued to him in December 1971, he was held guilty and punishment of dismissal was imposed on him, by the disciplinary authority, namely, Divisional Forest Officer, Valsad. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Conservator of Forest, Surat Circle, Surat and the above penalty was reduced to the reduction of the petitioner to the minimum of his pay scale as Beat Guard for a period of seven years.

(3.) Again, in connection with the illicit cutting of 692 trees detected in September 1972, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. A statement was recorded on 23/09/1972, wherein he had admitted that it was mistake on his part which would not be reported in future and that he would try to get back the materials which had been illegally cut off. In respect of that incident, final order was passed on 31/05/1977 and a minor penalty was imposed and the petitioner was continued on the basic pay for a future period of three years.