LAWS(HPH)-1976-7-4

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SRI. SOHAN LAL

Decided On July 07, 1976
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
Sri. Sohan Lal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing a writ petition filed by the Respondent and quashing the order removing him from service.

(2.) THE Respondent was employed as a Forest Guard and was placed incharge of the Mandhol Beat of Gangtoli Block of Trikkar Range in the Rohru Forest Division at the relevant time. It was noticed that heavy illicit felling of trees had taken place during the period January to May 1972, and an enquiry was instituted against the Respondent on the charge of negligence and dereliction of duty. The Respondent submitted his explanation and after considering the material before him the Enquiry Officer drew up a report holding the Respondent not guilty of the charge. The enquiry report was thereafter considered by the Conservator of Forests and taking a view different from that of the Enquiry Officer the Conservator of Forests came to the conclusion that the Respondent was guilty of the charge framed against him. He issued notice to the Respondent to show cause, against his removal from service. After examining the statement submitted by the Respondent he held that the Respondent was liable to removal from service and made an order accordingly on October 7, 1974. Against that order the Respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court.

(3.) OUR learned brother has observed in his judgment that during the period in which the illicit felling can be said to have taken place the Respondent was either on leave or he had been put in charge of some other work without, a substitute being provided to take care of his duties in the area where the felling had taken place. Our learned brother has noted that the Respondent had drawn up a damage report and submitted it to his superiors. In his opinion, the Respondent had done all that was possible of a diligent officer. In that view of the matter, he has held that the removal of the Respondent was not justified.