ABDUL MATIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially the present petition was filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur calling in question the order dated 10.04.2002 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of a penalty, after a departmental enquiry, has been dismissed by the departmental appellate authority. The petitioner has also called in question the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khandwa imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, after reviewing the earlier order dated 10.7.1997. The Original Application was pending when the M.P. Administrative Tribunal was closed and therefore the same was transmitted to this Court and is registered as Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who was working on the post of Forester, has contended that he was initially appointed as Coup Guard in the year 1969, was regularized on the post of Forest Guard in the year 1973, was promoted on the post of Forester on 24.3.1984 and was made to work in different places in such capacity. While the petitioner was working as Range Assistant, Battu Range of East Kalibheet (Territorial), he was placed under suspension vide an order dated 25.11.1996 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Khandwal. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had committed serious financial irregularities and misconduct while distributing the wages to the labours engaged in Jawahar Employment Scheme. The headquarter of the petitioner during the period of suspension was fixed at Moondi Range. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.12.1996 levelling the allegations that the petitioner while was working as Range Assistant in the said range w.e.f. 2.5.1995 to 25.11.1996, by preparing the false muster rolls for payment of wages to labours, some of whom were found to have died much earlier, an attempt was made to embezzle the public money. The other charges against the petitioner was that when he was placed under suspension and was required to handover his charge to another Forest Ranger, the said charge was not delivered by him and thereby a serious misconduct was committed by the him. The charge sheet included a list of documents on the basis of which charges levelled against the petitioner were required to be proved. A list of witnesses to be examined against the petitioner was also annexed containing the name of Shri B.C.Rathore, Dy. Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), East Kalibheet Forest Range as also the names of certain other witnesses. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet categorically contending that he has not committed any misconduct. It was contended by him that in fact the Jawahar Employment Scheme was executed through two contractors duly appointed in this respect and only those two contractors were required to prepare the muster rolls with respect to the payment of wages to the labours and after verification of those muster rolls, the payment of bills of those contractors was done only when the sanction was granted by the competent authority. All those payments were duly certified by the Dy. Divisional Forest Officer and without the verification of such a drawing and disbursing authority, no payment whatsoever was to be made by the petitioner. As far as the other charge is concerned, it was contended that the person, who was directed to take charge from the petitioner, had refused to accept the charge and therefore the charge was delivered to one Range Clerk by the petitioner. It was thus contended by the petitioner that there was no occasion to commit any embezzlement nor the petitioner has committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet and therefore the enquiry was liable to be closed.

(3.) Finding the reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet not satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, a direction was given to conduct an enquiry. After the departmental enquiry, it appears that a report was obtained. Copy of the same was served on the petitioner. His explanation was called and ultimately a final order was passed against the petitioner on 10.7.1997 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by such an order, the petitioner approached the departmental appellate authority, who, after considering the appeal of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that certain important aspects were not looked into by the Divisional Forest Officer while imposing the penalty on the petitioner. The matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to conduct enquiry in respect of certain issues, which were left unattended and to pass a fresh order. After completing the enquiry once again, the final order was passed by the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner from the date of order. Against this order, yet another appeal was filed by the petitioner, but since the said appeal was again dismissed, the Original Application was required to be filed.