KISHOR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the Resolution dated 6th of November, 2000 (Annexure -6) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of censure, recovery of a sum of Rs. 52, 000/ - from his salary and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, as a measure of punishment.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner joined as Forest Range Officer at Chakulia on 22.2.1994. A news item was published in the daily newspaper Awaz on 9.6.1994 regarding misappropriation of cashew -nut seeds from Lugahara Forest afforestation area and its sale in open market for personal gain. Under the direction of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Singhbhum and Conservator of Forest, South Circle, Chaibassa enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Forest Officer and from the statement of the Forest Guard and the Forester, the Divisional Forest Officer came to know that collection of Cashew nut seeds was done under the direction of the petitioner who was posted as Range Officer of the forest. It also surfaced during the enquiry that 26 quintals of cashew -nut seeds were sold in the market. Petitioner was asked to show cause and in pursuance thereof he submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Petitioner was served with memo of charges dated 18.1.1996 (Annexure -3) and the allegations against him were that he was negligent in performing his duties and responsibilities, got 26 quintals of cashew -nut seeds collected without bringing this fact to the knowledge of the higher authorities and sold 26 quintals of cashew -nut seeds illegally for his personal gain, causing loss of Rs. 52,000/ - to the State exchequer. By notification dated 18th of January, 1996 (Annexure -4) Sri S.N.Trivedi, Conservator of Forest and Sri P.K. Verma, Divisional Forest Officer were appointed as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. Petitioner submitted his reply and after the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted its report dated 16.8.1996 (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit). The State Government on consideration of the report of the enquiry officer as also the show -cause filed by the petitioner decided to impose punishment of censure, recovery of a sum of Rs. 52, 000/ - from his salary and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect by the impugned order.

(3.) MR . Naresh Dixit appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not posted in the forest area during the relevant time and as such he cannot be held guilty for misconduct purportedly for an act which had happened prior to his joining. In this connection Sri Dixit has drawn my attention to paragraph 4 of the application and states that the petitioner joined as Forest Range Officer at Chakulia on 22.2.1994 whereas the allegation of collection of cashew -nuts and its sale is prior to that. Mr. Dutta, S.C. IV however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that the alleged misconduct pertained to the period prior to the joining of the petitioner is unfounded on facts. He submits that the cashew -nuts were not collected in the year 1990 as projected by the petitioner but in fact it was collected in cashew -nut afforestation area no.90 and not in the year 1990. He points out that the petitioner is misconstruing the area 90 in relation to the afforestation area as the year.