STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJ KANWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioners, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Conservator of Forests, Rampur Circle, have filed the present petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of order dated June 22, 2004, passed by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby original application filed by respondent Raj Kanwar Singh, for the quashing of order of penalty, dated 2nd March, 1994, Annexure P-3, has been allowed.

(2.) Relevant facts are like this. Respondent, Raj Kanwar Singh, was employed as Forest Ranger in Forest Department of State of Himachal Pradesh. While working in Forest Division, Kotkhai, he allegedly embezzled material and money, the total value of which was Rs. 31,234/-. He was charge-sheeted by the Conservator of Forests. He denied the charge. Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Conservator of Forests. Inquiry was conducted and respondent was found guilty. Matter was referred to the Principal Conservator of Forests, who is the appointing authority of' the respondent. The said Principal Conservator of Forests imposed the penalty of reduction in rank and recovery of Rs. 31,234/-.

(3.) Respondent challenged the order by filing original application. The grounds on which the order was challenged, inter alia, were (a) Conservator of Forests was not competent to institute the inquiry, he being not the disciplinary authority; (b) procedure contained in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had not been followed, inasmuch as on the close of the case of the presenting side, no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to lead evidence nor was he questioned with respect to evidence adduced against him by the presenting side and (c) witnesses of the presenting side were recorded in the absence of the Defence Assistant of the respondent. Respondent took the plea that Conservator of Forests had been authorized by the Principal Conservator of Forests to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and other persons, who too were co-delinquent with him. Other grounds pleaded by the respondent were denied.