RAJKUMAR RACHANDANI Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Forest Range Assistant at the relevant time, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 6.7.2002 (Annexure P/6) by which the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 4, has imposed a penalty of withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect and directed recovery of Rs. 1,02,349/ - from the monthly salary bills of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said order, which has been dismissed on 16.12.2013 by the Conservator of Forest, respondent No. 3. Hence, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that when he was working as Forest Range Assistant a show cause notice was issued to him by the respondent No. 4 on 14.9.2000 asking him to show cause as to why the physical verification report of the Dy. Divisional Forest Officer, Lanjhi be not accepted and since the shortage in the wood stock was found, why not to recover 75% loss caused to the State, from the petitioner and the two increments of pay of the petitioner should not be withheld with cumulative effect. The petitioner on receipt of the said show cause notice filed his reply stating that such physical verification of the stock was not properly done and the report was not drawn in accordance to the instructions issued by the State Government. It was pointed out by the petitioner that no weigh bridge was available and a presumptory weight of every log was assessed and thereby a loss of wood was found. It was pointed out that if proper assessment is done in terms of the instructions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest of Government of M.P. on 22.8.1996, it would be clear that no loss was caused by the petitioner to the State Government and neither any recovery was to be made from the petitioner nor penalty of withholding of increments of pay was required to be imposed.

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that in fact withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, : 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504. If a major penalty is required to be imposed, the detailed enquiry as required under Rule 14 of the Rules aforesaid should have been conducted and then only any order could have been issued against the petitioner. The authorities have not looked into these requirements of law and have passed the order in such derogatory manner. As such the orders are bad in law and liable to be quashed.