RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one more of the perennial disputes inter se employer and employee qua dismissal of the employee (petitioner herein) from service. Resultantly, the petitioner knocked the door of erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (now stands abolished), by filing the extant petition, so the petition stood transferred to this Court. In nitty-gritty, the petitioner, by medium of the present writ petition, is seeking the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) Tersely, the facts, emanating from the extant writ petition, are that on 28.04.2010 D.F.O., Theog, constituted a team to probe into a complaint, qua illicit felling of trees. Ensuant to the constitution of a team, on 29.04.2010, R.O., accompanied by other members of the team reached Kalbog, and directed Shri Giteshwar Singh, the then B.O., Shri Mohan Lal and Shri Prakash Chand, Forest Guards to accompany him for forest checking on 30.04.2010. Ultimately, on 03.05.2010 R.O. submitted its inquiry report, wherein, it is stated that in the morning of 30.04.2010 Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O., Shri Mohan Lal and Shri Prakash Chand, Forest Guards consumed liquor, and did not join the forest checking. The petitioner, being the Forest Guard, posted at Kalbog, Block Gohach, Forest Range Kotkhai, Forest Division Theog, joined the R.O. for forest checking and during the checking only stumps were recovered, whereas, neither the timber was seen nor recovered. Surprisingly, on 04.05.2010, the petitioner was suspended, fixing his headquarter at Kotkhai, and a letter/complaint was sent to S.P. SV &ACB, Shimla, consequent thereto a case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. Later on, a common charge-sheet was issued on 22.06.2010 to the petitioner and to Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O.. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, respondent No. 3 (Conservator of Forests, Shimla), through order dated 19.03.2011, dismissed both the delinquents. Appeal, laying challenge to the dismissal order(s) were also dismissed, so the petitioner and said Shri Giteshwar Singh, instituted petitions before this Court, wherein, ultimately, the dismissal orders were quashed and set-aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter by allowing the petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh to file representations, if any, and conduct denovo inquiry. The respondents were also directed to decide the matter after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh. However, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed and on 03.05.2014 the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed. Appeal and revision, preferred by the petitioner, against the impugned order, were also dismissed, whereas, dismissal order of Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O., was upheld by respondent No. 2, but, upon appeal, respondent No. 3 reduced the penalty imposed upon him, viz., from dismissal to withholding of five increments consecutively. Thus, as per the petitioner, the respondents, for the alleged illegal felling of trees, differently treated the petitioner by dismissing him and for the same alleged felling Shri Giteshwar Singh, was reinstated.

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition to the Government of H.P., but, nothing happened thereon, so the petitioner approached the erstwhile Tribunal, for redressal of his grievance(s). As per the petitioner, despite explicit order from this High Court to reconsider the matter of the petitioner, providing him opportunity of personal hearing, neither his representation was considered nor denovo inquiry was conducted. He alongwith Shri Giteshwar Singh, was jointly charge-sheeted, a joint inquiry was conducted and lastly, both of them were dismissed, so the cases of the petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh are analogous and not severable, however, Shri Giteshwar Singh's penalty was reduced and he was ordered to be reinstated. Thus, the action of the respondents is not within the confines of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, in addition to the above grounds, also took some ancillary grounds, viz., charge-sheet was shown to be served upon him between 21.06.2010 to 22.07.2010, when he was in Sub-Jail Kaithu, the order of dismissal is also bad, as principles of audi altram partem were not adhered to. As per the petitioner, recovery of fuse-wire, from the guard-hut, in his absence, was also made a basis for prosecuting the petitioner, whereas, Shri Mohal Lal, Shri Prakash Chand, Forest Guards and Shri Sant Ram, Forest Worker, have their residences abutting to above guard-hut and Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O. was also having his residence there. It is alleged that impugned order was passed relying upon the statement of Shri Karam Chand, Investigating Officer, who stated that the petitioner confessed the illicit felling, during police remand. As per the petitioner, such a confession, does not create any binding force upon the disciplinary authority, in dismissing him. Lastly, the petitioner has also sought reliefs that the impugned order be quashed and set-aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.