BRIJESH KUMAR KULSHRESTHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order dated 8.5.2005 Annexure A -1 with regard to recovery from the petitioner and also the order Annexure A -4 dated 29.3.1996 and also the appellate order dismissing the appeal.

(2.) WHEN the petitioner was working forester at Shivpuri Depot since 1985 -1986, except for one or two years in between, certain fuel wood was deposited in the Depot Shivpuri time to time. It was found that the petitioner and other officers have marked more percentage than normal percentage fixed by the Government with regard to dryness of wood and due to above marking loss caused to the Government. For that purpose, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and other persons Copy of the notices dated 30.5.1995, 4.5.1995 and 27.12.1995 have been marked as Annexure A -2. Notice dated 30.5.1995 is with regard to dryness for the year 1989 -1990, 1990 -1991, total loss of amount of rupees 4,71,230/ -. Another notice dated 4.5.1995 is also for the year 1991 -1992, 1992 -1993 and 1993 -94. Similarly the third notice dated 27.12.1995 is with regard to the year 1994 -95 and total loss of amount has been mentioned as Rs.1,00,908/ -. It is mentioned in the notices that as per Government criteria the total dryness has been fixed as 20%, however, there was an excess dryness. Hence, why the amount which was calculated on the basis of excess dryness fixed by the petitioner and other two persons be recovered from the petitioner and two other persons. Along with the petitioner, notices have been given to two other person namely Mr. M.P. Rajpal and Mr. M.P. Sharma who were also forester and the petitioner was the in -charge of Depot. The notices were given jointly but it has not been mentioned in the notice that upto what extent the petitioner is responsible and what was the carelessness, default or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner submitted two replies. Copy of the replies have been filed as Annexure A -3. In the aforesaid replies, the petitioner has specifically stated that he had given the charge on 25.7.1990 and thereafter from 25.7. 1990 to 22.9.191 Mr. Rajpal was the Depot in -charge and it was again given to the petitioner on 22.9.1991 and when the charge was given it was given after calculating the dryness. He also submitted the copy of charge report in which he stated the fact that what amount of new wood have been supplied during the tenure and earlier 35% dryness was counted. When the petitioner was given the charge on the basis of above, the petitioner had submitted that there was no excess dryness during his tenure and with regard other officers the dryness of 35% has been accepted by the authorities. The same facts have been mentioned in the reply of another notice 27.12.1995. Petitioner has mentioned detailed facts with regard to dryness and he specifically stated that wood were lying in open area. 4. Without considering of the reply submitted by the petitioner by the impugned order petitioner was directed to be liable for loss of Rs. 50,454/ -with regard to the year of shortage and dryness for the year 1989 -1990, 1990 -1991. Similarly for the year of 1991 -1992, 1992 -1993 and 1993 -94 petitioner was held liable for total loss of Rs. 29,868/ - and 90,722/ -. Similarly, vide order dated 12.12.1995 he was also held liable. 5. Against the aforesaid orders petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate authority. The petitioner submitted the details and mentioned that he was not at all liable for recovery and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. But the appeals of the petitioner have been rejected vide order dated 16.6.2000 without assigning any reasons. It is mentioned in appellate orders that the appeals filed by the petitioner have been rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been visited civil consequences and the impugned orders are arbitrary. Contrary to this Government Advocate has submitted that sufficient reasons have been mentioned in the orders and the petitioner was responsible for causing dryness, hence orders of recoveries have been passed. 7.2005 (8) SCC 618, a seven Judges Bench decision has held that when a power is conferred on a particular authority to adjudicate and make a decision finally on the matters decided by the aforesaid decision is a quasi judicial function and authority has to act fairly. In the circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to assign reasons in support of the orders. 8. Apart from this, the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1966, Chapter V, Rule X prescribes penalty No.1 to 4 with regard to minor penalties and clause 3 prescribes recovery with regard to pecuniary loss which is as under: