BRAJ KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, prayer is to quash the Govt. order issued vide memo no. 3160 dated 26.9.2002 by the Deputy Secretary to the Government (Annexure -1), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service while posted as Forester and further to reinstate him in service alongwith all consequential benefits.

(2.) PETITIONER &aposs case, in brief, is that he was appointed as Forester and joined in the office of Conservator of Forests, Development Circle, Ranchi on 19.4.1984. On transfer petitioner was posted as Forester of Forests Range, Supaul under Forest Extension Division, Saharsa, where he joined on 12.1.2001. On 23rd July, 2001 two lots of Shisham timber logs of Supaul Forest Depot were auctioned by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saharsa and was sold in favour of highest bidder, namely, Md. Khurshid Aiam. On receipt of release order issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saharsa, the Range Officer of Forests vide his letter dated 19.8.2001 (Annexure -2) directed the petitioner, who was Depot Incharge to dispose of the concerned Shisham timber logs. The purchaser Md. Khurshid Alam submitted a written request to the petitioner to release the Shisham wood logs to his authorised agent, Sunil Kumar Pandey for transporting the same to Dehri -on - Sone (Bihar). Accordingly, the petitioner issued Transit Permit No. 438 dated 19.8.2001 for transporting the timber logs from Forest Depot, Supaul to M/s Sandhu Timber Works, Dehri -on - Sone (Bihar), Later, Range Officer, Forest Range, Supaul vide his letter no. 725 dated 5.9.2001 (Annexure -5) called for an explanation from the petitioner as to how the place of destination i.e. M/s Sandhu Timber Works, Dehri -on -Sone (Bihar) mentioned in Transit Permit No. 438 dated 19.8.2001 has been changed as Bhuiandih, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) via Maheshkhunt, Biharsharif and Ranchi by making interpolation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.9.2001. Thereafter, petitioner was placed under suspension vide Annexure -7 in contemplation of departmental proceeding on the charge of making interpolation in Transit permit in the place of destination and a criminal case being Supaul P.S. Case No. 292 of 2001 was also instituted by Range Officer of Forests, Supaul against the auction purchaser, Md. Khurshid Alam, his authorised agent Sunil Kumar Pandey and Md. Rizwan, driver of the truck for making interpolation. The Conservator of Forests, Extension Circle, Purnea also submitted written report to Supaul Police Station and Supaul RS. Case No. 297 of 2001 was registered against petitioner and five others for the same offence. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for the same set of allegation vide memo dated 29.1.2002 and the petitioner was directed to submit his written defence against the charges mentioned therein. The Enquiry Officer vide his letter dated 1.3.2002 fixed the date of enquiry on 5.3.2002 at Forest Extension Division Office, Saharsa and the petitioner was directed to submit his written defence. As per the direction of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted his written defence on 5.3.2002 to the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges framed against him vide letter dated 29.1.2002 (Annexure -10) and denied all the charges. He further submitted that for the same set of charges, Supaul RS. Case No., 297 of 2001 has been instituted against the petitioner and others and the Superintendent of Police, Supaul, vide his supervision note dated 4.11.2001 has found that the petitioner is quite innocent and is in no way involved in the matter of interpolation made in the place of destination in Transit Permit No. 438 dated 19.8.2001, and, as such, he requested for exonerating him from the charges framed against him The next date in the enquiry proceeding was fixed on 9.4.2002 in the office of the Enquiry Officer at Patna. The petitioner appeared in the enquiry proceeding and was cross -examined by the Enquiry Officer. No evidence, either oral or documentary was produced by the Presenting Officer in support of the charges. The next date of enquiry was fixed on 17.4.2002. On that date also no evidence either oral or documentary was produced by the Presenting Officer to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. On that day, petitioner produced defence witness Sri Yogendra Prasad, Depot Munshi, in whose presence the transit permit in question was issued and the said witness was cross -examined and in his cross -examination he supported the case of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report mentioning therein that no charge has been proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, however, made a conjectural remark that there appears suspicion against the petitioner, as his writing over the Transit permit has not been examined by the Handwriting Expert. After submission of enquiry report, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice and after considering the same petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order (Annexure -1).

(3.) MR . Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order (Annexure -1) by which petitioner has been dismissed from service is bad and fit to be quashed on the sole ground that the Enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer instead of being considered by the Conservator of Forests, who is disciplinary authority of the petitioner has been considered by the State Government directly and a second show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner by the State Government, depriving him of the right of appeal. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India V/s. G. Muralidhar, reported in (2001)10 Supreme Court Cases 43 and Surjlt Ghosh V/s. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors., reported in (1995)2 Supreme Court&apos Cases 474. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer in his report mentioned that no charge has been proved against the petitioner. However, he made a conjuctural remark expressing suspicion against the petitioner, as his writing over the transit permit in question has not been examined by the Handwriting expert. Thus, learned Senior counsel submitted that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the competent authority was obliged to assign reason for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer while issuing second show cause notice, but, the same has not been done, which also vitiates the impugned order. He submitted that the enquiry against the petitioner was not conducted in accordance with the provision of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and the principle decided in various decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. Thus, according to him, the petitioner has illegally been found guilty of the charges and has arbitrarily been dismissed from service. He further submitted that the validity of the letter dated 10.7.2001 by which it was directed that no Transit permit for transportation of the forest produce shall be issued from the State of Bihar for any destination outside the State, was challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 9632 of 2001 (M/s Bhartia and Sons V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and this Court vide order dated 18.9.2001 held that the Respondents have no authority or power to prohibit movement of Shisham wood outside the State and set aside the direction contained in the said letter dated 10.7.2001, which was later recalled by the State Government vide letter dated 22.12.2001 (Annexure -17). Thus, learned Senior counsel submitted that there was no restriction of movement of Shisham wood from the State of Bihar to any destination outside the State.