LAWS(MPH)-1966-12-12

PRABHAKAR NARAYAN MENJOGE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On December 22, 1966
PRABHAKAR NARAYAN MENJOGE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner, who was employed as a Forester, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon, on 26th July 3962 dismissing him from service. The order of the Divisional Forest Officer was upheld in appeal by the Conservator of Forests, Raipur Circle. A writ has been sought for quashing that order also.

(2.) THE material facts are that on complaints being received about illicit felling in reserved and protected Forests in Taragaon Circle, where the petitioner was posted, with the connivance of the petitioner and some other employees of the forest Department, a preliminary enquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Forest officer, Kawardha. into the reports about illicit felling and it was found that illicit felling was indulged in on account of the negligence and connivance of the petitioner. The applicant was then placed under suspension with his head-quarters at Gandai and attached to Range Officer, Gandai Range. Despite these orders fixing his head-quarters at Gandai. the applicant remained at Kawardha.

(3.) A departmental enquiry was then started against the petitioner on charges of gross neglect of duty and disobedience of the order fixing his headquarters during the period of suspension at Gandai. The departmental enquiry was conducted by shri P. S. Mehta, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Rajnaiidgaon. He found both the charges to be established. Thereupon, a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service was issued to the applicant on 4th May 1962 by the divisional Forest Officer, North Drug Division, Rajnandgaon. A copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was also furnished to the petitioner along with the aforesaid notice. The petitioner gave his explanation denying the charges levelled against him which did not satisfy the Divisional Forest Offecer who accordingly made the impugned order of dismissal.