OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and the summoning order dated 2-6- 2000 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Lucknow, contained in Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the petition. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner by virtue of being posted as Range Officer from November, 1991 to June, 1994 in the City Range of Avadh Forest Division, Lucknow was charged for certain irregularities in regard to payment being made to the daily wagers. In view of the aforesaid allegations an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow on 8-9-2006. Thereafter investigation proceeded in the matter and a charge-sheet was filed. The muster roll concerning the attendance, work and payment etc. was prepared by the Forest Guard and the Forester and the petitioner was having no responsibility in regard to the same being Range Officer. The verification and identification was also to be made by the Forest Guard and the Forester. Even according to the Financial Hand Book Volume-Ill, Rule 125 the preparation of the muster roll has to be done by the subordinate employees. The allegations against the petitioner was that while being posted from 10-11- 1991 to 30.6.1994 as Forest Range Officer, City Range of Avadh Forest Division, Lucknow payment was made to seven persons including one Shiv Murti as daily wagers amounting to ?11,350, whereas the said Shiv Murti is alleged to have not worked in the months of April, May and June, 1993 and payment was made to him. Apart from it, seven daily wagers were also shown to have been distributed the food grains. The food grains and the wages were not paid to these workers and their signatures and thumb impressions were alleged to be forged. On the aforesaid allegations, investigation proceeded and ultimately in the investigation it was found that the allegations made against the petitioner were not substantiated and only in respect of Smt. Kamla and Tara Shanker an amount of Rs.2235 was not paid and in respect of other daily wagers it was found hat payment has been made. After investigation sanction was sought from the appointing authority to prosecute the petitioner as contemplated under various sections. The competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide order dated 31.12.1998 refused to accord sanction after going through the evidence on record as the Foresters Dileep Singh Kanwal and Piyush Mohan Srivastava have identified the signatures and thumb impressions of the said labourers and so it was found that it was the responsibility of the said persons and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and the sanction was refused. In respect of Foresters Dileep Singh Kanwal and Piyush Mohan Srivastava it was found that the appointing Authority of these persons was Conservator of Forest and hence the matter was referred to the Conservator, of Forest for according of sanction. The aforesaid order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was forwarded to the Government and the Principal Secretary in the Government on 1.1.1999 overruled the decision taken by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest by unreasoned order by simply saying that he was not agreeable with the said order and opined that the action was required to be taken against the petitioner. Alter passing of the said order, another letter was written by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 26.6.1999 that in case the Government was not satisfied with the recommendation, then he may be informed accordingly so that the proceedings may be initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was processed in the State Government and the State Government on 28.4.2000 referred the matter to the Chief Conservator of Forest, who proceeded to accord sanction in respect of the petitioner vide letter dated 4.5.2000 assuming himself to be the appointing authority of the petitioner. After grant of sanction, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and by virtue of the order dated 2.6.2000 the petitioner was summoned to face the trial. Hence this petition.

(2.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority of the petitioner at the relevant time was Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and he continued to be as such even thereafter. The power to accord sanction was vested in the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and in respect of Forester and the Forest Guard the matter was referred to the Conservator of Forest, who was the appointing authority of the said persons. It is submitted that the State Government committed manifest error of law in reviewing the order dated 31.12.1998 as there is no provision as contemplated under rules forgetting any approval from the Government when the appointing authority of the petitioner happens to be the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The State Government taking the shelter of the Government Order dated 6.6.1989 assuming that the appointing authority of the petitioner was Chief Conservator of Forest and hence the power was vested in him to grant sanction committed manifest error. The said Government Order dated 6.6.1989 has been superseded by means of the Government Order dated 8.6.1990 in which a cut off date has been given as 1.1.1990, therefore, the Government order dated 6.6.1989 stood superseded and was not in existence and hence the reliance was placed wrongly to assume that the appointing authority of the petitioner was the Chief Conservator of Forest. The power was; never vested with the said authority ancfi, therefore, the sanction order passed fry the Chief Conservator of Forest was wholly illegal and without authority of law. The power of review was also not vested with the Chief Conservator of Forest over and above the order of the appointing authority, who proceeded to take a decision that there was no prosecutable evidence available against the petitioner and thereby refused to accord sanction. The Principal Secretary by an unreasoned order and without assigning any reason only relying on the basis of recommendation of the vigilance department has illegally proceeded to order for prosecuting the petitioner. The power vested in a particular authority has to be exercised as contemplated under the rules and in accordance with the procedure provided therein and no other authority is competent to take a decision otherwise. The petitioner was only acting in supervisory capacity and he has never verified or identified the signatures of the labourers and the criminal liability is an individual liability and it cannot be extended to vicarious liability. The appointing authority of the petitioner being the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the whole exercise taken against the petitioner is illegal and without authority of law.

(3.) THE petitioner, who was posted as Range Officer from November, 1991 to June, 1994 in the City Range of Avadh Forest Division, Lucknow was proceeded to face some allegations in respect of certain payments being made under his supervision and control. In respect of the said allegations an F.I.R. was lodged on 8-9- 2006 at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow. After lodging of the F.I.R., investigation proceeded and in the investigation it was found that the allegations made in the F.I.R. were baseless and were not found to be established apart from the allegations in respect of Rs.2235 which, as alleged, was not found to be paid to the persons concerned.