IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.W.J.C. No. 798 of 2000
Sadanand Mahto ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. ... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.P.Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. G.P.-I
--------
C.A.V. on 12.05.2009 Pronounced on 19.05.2009.
ORDER
05/ 19.05.2009
. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following
reliefs:-
1. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or
a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order
passed in the Departmental Proceeding which was
communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1415 dated
8.9.1995 (Annexure-1) whereby and whereunder punishment
has been imposed upon the petitioner,
2. For quashing of the appellate order (Annexure-6) whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of with slight
modification in the punishment that he was put in the minimum
salary was set aside further the other punishments were upheld
in which it was said that his two annual increments will be
withheld which will affect his annual increments in future
permanently and during the period of suspension apart from
subsistence allowance he will not get anything.
2. The facts in brief are set out as under;-
The petitioner was working as a Forest Guard and was put
under suspension for the charges leveled against him for carelessness
against the assigned responsibility, for showing gross indisciplinary
disobedience order of senior officer (Negligence of Absolute Duty) and
furnishing wrong information, for being negligent in protecting forest
assets and for not furnishing correct and timely information of illegal
felling of the trees by antisocial elements. A departmental proceeding
was accordingly initiated and after affording sufficient opportunity
following punishment was imposed upon him;
(i) He was reverted to minimum salary of Forest Guard,
(ii) Two annual increments was withheld, which affected his annual
increments in future permanently,
(iii) He was reinstated in service from the date of issuance of order,
2
(iv) During the period of suspension apart from subsistence
allowance he will not get anything,
3. The petitioner made a representation on 29.10.1995 to the
Conservator of Forest, South Circle, Chaibasa, stating that the
punishment imposed upon him in the departmental proceeding was
illegal and made a request to review the matter after perusing the
documents on record. The petitioner also preferred an appeal on
11.2.1996 before the Conservator of Forest, South Circle, Chaibasa. In
the meanwhile the petitioner preferred a writ petition C.W.J.C. No.
2654/99 (R) against the punishment and also for speedy disposal of
the appeal.
4. However, the respondents in their counter-affidavit filed therein
informed that the appeal was disposed of on 5.11.1999 and the writ
petition was accordingly withdrawn with liberty to challenge the
subsequent development and punishment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Office
Order No. 44 dated 5.11.1999 the appeal preferred by the petitioner
was disposed of with a modification that out of the punishment
imposed the punishment with regard to putting him in minimum of
salary was set aside but the other two punishments i.e. his two
annual increments will be withheld affecting his future increments and
further during the period of suspension apart from subsistence
allowance he will not get anything was upheld.
6. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the
aforesaid modified punishment sustained in the appeal.
7. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is
that the Appellate Authority after considering all the aspects came to
the conclusion that felling or the cutting of the trees were committed
by antisocial elements for which the petitioner cannot be held
responsible. It has further been contended that the punishment was
clearly disproportionate to the charges which in any case was vague
and there was no material on record to pass the order of punishment.
8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had given a
detailed report about the felling of the trees on 9.7.1994 and informed
the Officer Incharge of Manoharpur Police Station that antisocial
elements came from Orissa with deadly weapons and threatened him
and as such he could not face them alone. It has further been
submitted that such charges can never be proved and thus the
punishment imposed upon him was not justified.
9. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have submitted that due
opportunity was given to him and the appellate authority after considering the entire
3
case reduced the punishment which was commensurate to the charges. It has also
been submitted that the other two forest guards working under the petitioner were
given clean chit does not entitle the petitioner to be also given clean chit. Those two
were not found guilty and that is why they were set free.
10. I have considered the rival submissions and the pleadings and also the
impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. In the impugned appellate order
while reviewing the original order dated 4.11.99 the appellate authority i.e. the
Conservator of Forest, South Circle, Chaibasa clearly held that on perusal of the
above facts it becomes clear that the forest guard has been given punishment of
such charge regarding which no report has been submitted by the Investigating
Officer. It has further categorically observed that the report of the Investigating
Officer was received even before the constitution of the amended departmental
proceeding No.26 dated 28.3.95. It has also been observed that in the above
departmental proceeding it does not seem proper to punish only the forest guard on
such charge relating to cutting of trees even though a forest guard may be guilty.
The petitioner has specifically presented the documentary proof by way of evidence
giving the report about the falling of trees and also the information to the Officer-in-
charge of Manoharpur Police Station that the anti-social elements were coming with
deadly weapons from Orissa and had threatened to kill them. Thus it cannot be said
that he was negligent.
11. Once the entire finding is in favour of the petitioner then it does not stand
to reason as to why while recalling the 1st punishment the Appellate Authority has
sustained the other two punishments. The same reasoning will apply in both the
situation that is either he is guilty or not and the analysis made by the Appellate
Authority clearly indicates that neither the charges were proved nor the report of the
investigating officer was submitted with respect to some of the charges and the
report was given prior to the constitution of the amended departmental proceeding.
12. Thus it will be evident that in absence of any material on record and in
absence of any report on certain charges the petitioner could not have been
punished.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, this writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.09.2005 is quashed and the
matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration in the light of
the aforesaid observation.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 19th May, 2009
D.S./ NKC N.A.F.R.