R D RAWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, R.D. Rawal, who is now a Divisional Forest Officer, joined the Forest Department in April 1948 as Forest Ranger. He was appointed in the Punjab Forest Service (Class II) with effect from 1st December, 1958. According to the allegations in the petition from 1958 till 1960 he was working as Timber Extraction Officer in the Kulu Forest Division. In the year 1958 some anonymous complaint was made by certain contractors to the higher authorities against him. He was given benefit of approved war service and thus became senior to some officers including one Amarjit Singh in the Punjab Forest Service (Class II). The aforesaid Amarjit Singh is a brother-in-law of Shri Amarjit Singh respondent No. 4, who was Under Secretary and later on Deputy Secretary in the Forest Department of the Punjab Government. Amarjit Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, filed a writ petition in this court challenging the benefit of the war service which was allowed to the petitioner and the other officers but that petition was dismissed in 1962. A number of allegations have been made in the petition against the part played by Shri Amarjit Singh respondent No. 4 and Shri B.B. Vohra, Secretary of the Department concerned, in the matter of harming the career of the petitioner. It is wholly unnecessary to mention them except to the extent strictly necessary as I do not propose to decide the question of mala fide in these proceedings, although they have been pressed by Mr. Abnasha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) It is next alleged that after the lapse of about seven years of the complaint which was lodged in 1958, the Chief Conservator of Forests was directed by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Department to frame a charge-sheet against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was then prepared containing two charges which are to be found in Annexure 'A'. These charges were -

(3.) Now, Rule 7 of the Rules deals with an enquiry before imposition of the more serious penalties contained in Rule 4, namely, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. This rule is very similar to what is provided in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It is common ground that it was under Rule 7 that the charges were preferred and the enquiry was held against the petitioner. He was, however, exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, Shri Bachan Singh, from both the charges. On charge No. 3 this is what he said -