KARAN SINGH TAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Ranger in the Forest Department, has challenged the impugned order Annex. 37 dated 18/12/1997 by which the punishment of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect, a minor punishment, was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the charge no. 2 found proved against the petitioner. The said order came to be upheld by the appellate authority vide Annex. 40 dated 19/4/2000 and by the reviewing authority also vide order Annex. 45 dated 25/1/2002.

(2.) IN the earlier round of litigation, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was set aside and quashed by this Court while allowing SBCWP No. 788/93 -Shri Karan Singh Tak vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. on 4/3/1997 (Annex. 7) directing the respondents to proceed further with the de novo enquiry and also directed the petitioner to cooperate in the said enquiry. The said de novo enquiry was to be conducted either by the Principal Officer not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests or by an officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forests. In pursuance of these directions, the said fresh enquiry was held against the petitioner but in the meanwhile the petitioner also filed contempt petition before this Court, namely; SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 240/97 arising out of the aforesaid writ petition No. 788/93 & the learned Single Judge of this Court directed personal presence of the respondent contemnors vide order dated 5/9/1997 in SB Civil Misc. Application No. 203/1997. The petitioner during this contempt proceedings also filed additional affidavit (page 142 of the paper book), a copy of which is placed at Annex. 12 dated 18/9/1997) in which he alleged that the respondent contemnor indirectly threatened him of dire consequences and pressurized him to withdraw the contempt petition. In this background, in pursuance of the directions of this Court the present proceedings were concluded against the petitioner and as against four charges, only one charge was found to be proved i.e. charge no. 2 vide page 279 internal page 8 of the paper book. The charge against the petitioner was that while working as Ranger in the Forest Department at Beawar under the D.P.A.P. Scheme in Bayakheda, Soniyana and Lotiyana in the area of about 100 Hectares, he had shown about 21,000 and 28,000 pit holes dug for the purpose of plantation for the said afforestation scheme between the period January, 1987 to March, 1987 but in the subsequent inspection carried out by the concerned authorities in the month of October -November, 1987, about 6 -7 months thereafter, it was found that 17,966 pit holes were less in number and thus the petitioner caused financial loss of Rs. 20,122/ - to the respondent State Government. The said inspection was carried out by two persons namely; Shri Virendra Singh, Assistant Conservator of Forest and Shri Jatan Singh Karnawat, Assistant Conservator of Forest and on the basis of various oral evidence, the said charge was found to be proved and consequently the disciplinary authority imposed the aforesaid punishment of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect, which is stated to have been upheld by the appellate authority and review authority and being aggrieved by the same the petitioner had preferred this writ petition before this Court. The connected writ petition No. 2602/2002 -Karan Singh Tak vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. was filed by the petitioner for non -consideration of his case for promotion to the next higher post in view of the punishment order, which is challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. S.R. Paliwal appearing for the respondent Department supported the impugned order and urged that the enquiry has been concluded and impugned order has been passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest under the directions of this Court dated 4/3/1997 and there is no bias against the petitioner. He also submitted that the punishment is not disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and in view of the dereliction of duties established by the respondent Department, the impugned punishment order is justifiable and also upheld by the higher authorities.