BEGA NAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of CWP(T) No. 14329 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 11067 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 8021 of 2008 as these petitions are inter -connected. CWP(T) No. 8021 of 2008 was filed first, thereafter CWP(T) No. 11067 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 14329 of 2008 were filed respectively.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the respondents by filing reply. In the preliminary submissions, it has been stated that the pension papers of the petitioner were submitted to Senior Accountant General (A&E), Himachal Pradesh on 18.5.2006. The case was received back duly sanctioned from the competent authority subject to recovery of dues against the petitioner. The payment of DCRG to the tune of Rs. 2,67,284/ - plus leave encashment of 243 days which works out to Rs. 1,39,895/ - has been withheld due to departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. There were two disciplinary cases pending against the petitioner, one has been decided and penalty for recovery of Rs. 1,32,799/ - has been imposed. The recovery could not be effected as the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 2687 of 2001 and erstwhile Tribunal had directed on 16.10.2001 not to effect the recovery. In another case, the petitioner is jointly charge -sheeted and the inquiry of this departmental case is pending as one of the delinquent official has filed O.A. No. 1504 of 2001 in which the erstwhile Tribunal had granted stay on the inquiry. This petition is also pending. In these circumstances, the DCRG and leave encashment of 243 days could not be released.

(3.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner is that when petitioner was posted as Deputy Ranger in Kalpa Block, Nichar Division in the year 1985 to 1988, a disciplinary inquiry was contemplated against the petitioner alongwith Krishan Lal, Forest Ranger, Lal Singh, Forest Guard and Uday Singh, Forest Guard of Nichar Forest Division. All were charge -sheeted jointly for dereliction of duty and causing financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 2,58,817.58. Dr. V.R.R. Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Silviculture, Research Division, Shimla was appointed as Inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry and came to the conclusion that delinquents were not responsible for any kind of illicit felling and, therefore, cannot be held responsible and they were exonerated of all the charges. The department slept over the inquiry report and did nothing. In December, 1999 the petitioner received letter dated 18.12.1999 ordering recovery of Rs. 1,32,799.15 from the petitioner. The petitioner made detailed representation. The representation of the petitioner was filed vide communication dated 7.7.2000 of respondent No. 1 addressed to respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 vide office order dated 22.9.2001 ordered recovery of Rs. 1,32,799/ - against the petitioner. The action of the respondents is wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of office order dated 22.9.2001 with a further direction to the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner in pursuance of office order dated 22.9.2001.