SWAMI PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 3-5-1990 Annexure A/1 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26-5-1994, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) In the year 1979 petitioner was working as Deputy Range Officer in Range Jatara. On 15-3-1979 animals were found illegally grazing in the forest area i.e. the prohibited area. It was found that 4475 Sheep and 77 Camels coming from Rajasthan have entered unauthorizedly in the forest area. It is stated that animals were seized and case bearing No. 7024/1 was registered on the same date i.e. 15-3-1979 and seized animals were kept in the animal home of the forest department. It is stated that keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, the Range Officer, Jatara was orally told to take care of the animals and on 16-3-1979 by a written letter the petitioner Swami Prasad Yadav was directed to ensure that the seized animals are not let-off. It is further the case of the department that on 16-3-1979 itself the offence was compounded and after imposing a fine of Rs. 21- per sheep and Rs. 15/- per Camel towards compounding fee a total fee of Rs. 10,105/- was imposed and by letter dated 16-3-1979 the then Range Officer intimated the petitioner to recover the amount towards compounding of the offence and thereafter release the animals. It is alleged that vide order No. 455 dated 17-3-1979 petitioner informed the authorities that the animals are not available in the Kanji House and therefore, he cannot recover the amount. For the aforesaid, petitioner was found guilty, on the charge that petitioner without receiving of the compounding fee released the animals and committed dereliction of duty and committed loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 10105/-, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. However, it seems that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet and therefore, vide order dated 21-4-1987 the Divisional Forest Officer, Tikamgarh was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the Project Officer, Tikamgarh as 'Presenting Officer' to conduct an enquiry into the charge-sheet dated 21-1-1982 issued to the petitioner. It may be taken note of that the incidence took place on 15th, 16th and 17th of March, 1979 and charge-sheet was issued on 21-1-1982 and Enquiry Officer was appointed after a period of five years on 21-4-1987. Finally, the departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The report of the Enquiry Officer is Annexure R/l is dated 14-2-1990. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report the impugned order of penalty was passed on 3-5-1990 and the appeal having been dismissed, petitioner has filed this petition initially in the year 1999 as an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and after winding up of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court.

(3.) Shri K. C. Ghildyal, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition and to contend that the action taken against the petitioner is unsustainable, basically canvassed three grounds. His first ground of attack was to the effect that in the Departmental Enquiry no defence assistance was provided to the petitioner and therefore, in the absence of the defence assistance petitioner was handicapped in effectively defending himself in the enquiry. The second contention was that documents relevant for defending the petitioner and demanded by the petitioner vide Annexure A/5, A/6 and A/7 were never supplied to the petitioner during the enquiry. Learned counsel submits that apart from various documents indicated in these communicates the letter dated 16-3-1979 on the basis of which petitioner was directed not to release the animals till recovery of the fine was never produced in the enquiry and was not even part of the enquiry. In spite thereof, reliance is placed by the Enquiry officer for holding the petitioner guilty. Contending that the relevant document was not supplied to the petitioner, the second ground of attack is that enquiry stands vitiated. Finally, by taking me through the report of the Enquiry Officer as contained in Annexure R/l, Shri K. C. Ghildyal argued that the Enquiry Officer has given a perverse finding which cannot be termed as a 'enquiry report' at all. It was emphasized by him that except for recording the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet and narrating the statement of witnesses of the prosecution and the defence, the Enquiry Officer simply recorded a finding in 10 lines to the effect "in the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the evidence charges are proved". This according to Shri K. C. Ghildyal is not a finding at all. It is argued by him that the Enquiry Officer was duty bound to analyze the case of the prosecution, thereafter discuss the defence of the petitioner and hold the charges proved by recording a positive finding giving cogent reason for holding so. It is stated that Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding without giving any reason and therefore, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is nothing but his own assumption without any basis and therefore, is a perverse finding on the basis of which the penalty imposed is unsustainable.