JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of dismissal dated 10.9.1998 Annexure-15 to the writ petition.
2. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant,
learned counsel for the petitioner and” Sri V. K. Singh for the respondent.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Logging Officer in the U. P. Forest Corporation in 1986. He was placed under suspension by the order of the Managing Director of the U. P. Forest Corporation dated 11.3.1997 vide Annexure-1A to the writ petition. In that suspension order, it was mentioned that various irregularities were detected in the storage of tendu leaves in 1994 season. Complaints had also been received regarding under-weighing and other irregularities in Karwi Logging Division in 1994. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of suspension in Writ Petition No. 10118 of 1997 but the same was dismissed with the direction that the enquiry be completed within six months of production of certified copy of the order. Thereafter on 22.7.1997 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet true copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner made a request that certain relevant documents be made available to him vide letter dated 1.8.1997 Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In paragraph of the writ petition it is stated that when no reply was received in response to the said letter, he made another request through letter dated 1.9.1997 Annexure-5 to the writ petition which was sent under postal certificate. Thereafter the petitioner gave another reminder dated 11.9.1997 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition and then he wrote another letter dated 24.9.1997 vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
4. In paragraph 32 of the writ petition it is stated that on 29.8.1997, the petitioner was informed that he may inspect the relevant records any day in the office of the Divisional Logging Officer, Karwi Division Banda, vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In paragraph 33 to the writ
petition, it is alleged that it was only through letter dated 15.9.1997 that the entire records which were required to be inspected by the petitioner were transmitted from Lucknow to Karwi vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In paragraph 34 of the writ petition, it is alleged that while on the one hand the respondent corporation had fixed 15.9.1997 for inspection of record at Karwi. on the other hand the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 13.9.1997. This enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner through a show cause notice dated 26.2.1998. True copy of the show cause notice and the enquiry report are Annexures-10 and 11 to the writ petition. In paragraph 36 of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner was granted time till 21.8.1998 for sending reply with a condition that no further extension was possible beyond that, The petitioner did not either gave his reply to the show cause notice nor did he indicate the papers which he wanted to inspect. The second show cause notice states that by letter dated 15.12.1997 the petitioner was asked to indicate the papers which were not made available to him by 20.12.1997. In paragraph 38 of the writ petition it is alleged that this was a false allegation since the enquiry officer had submitted his ex parte report on 13.9.1997 and thus the letter dated 15.12.1997 was absolutely vague and meaningless.
5. In paragraph 39 of the writ petition, it is alleged that it was false to state that the petitioner did not indicate the documents whose copies he wanted. In paragraph 40 it is stated that the inspection of the record was carried out by the petitioner on 16.9.1997. It is alleged that even on that date the petitioner was not shown the entire record.
6. The petitioner gave a reply to the charge-sheet on 9.10.1997 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In paragraph 42 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner did not commit any breach of instructions and in fact has been scrupulous and meticulous. In paragraph 43, it is
stated that the Regional Manager did not raise any objection to the constitution of the Committee. In paragraphs 44 to 59 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made various averments oh the merits of the matter which were enquired into. The petitioner gave a reply to the second show cause notice through letter dated 30.3.1998 vide Annexure-
13 to the writ petition,
7. In paragraph 61 of the writ petition. It is stated that while furnishing copy of the enquiry report, the corporation had not furnished copy of the supplementary enquiry report. However, the petitioner gave a reply dated 11.3.1998 vide Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Thereafter the impugned dismissal order dated 10.9.1998 was passed.
8. In paragraphs 64 to 69 of the writ petition again, various averments on the merits of the matter which were enquired into have been made.
9. In paragraphs 70, 71 and 72 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the rules of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of putting his defence in writing nor leading his evidence and witnesses. The opportunity to inspect the papers only on 16.9.1997 was meaningless as enquiry report was submitted on 13.9.1997.
10. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Logging Manager, Karwi. In paragraph 4 of the same it has been stated that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted for causing loss to the tune of Rs. 2.20.894.40 by doing under weighment in respect of tendu leaves for 1994 season and causing a total loss of Rs. 5,83,092.00 by disobeying the orders of the higher authority in collusion with his subordinates. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the enquiry officer afforded full opportunity to the petitioner in respect of inspection of documents and cross-examination of witnesses. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Managing Director being the appointing and disciplinary authority
of the petitioner served a copy of the enquiry report along with the letter dated 26.2.1998 upon the petitioner calling him to show cause. The petitioner sent a reply but it was not found satisfactory and hence the
Jmpugned order was passed. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the enquiry was conducted in a most impartial and judicious manner in which the petitioner was given full opportunity to place his defence. It was denied that the petitioner was not given opportunity to inspect the record. The petitioner made a complaint dated 25.12.1997 to the enquiry officer that he has not been shown certain papers but the enquiry officer found that the papers pertained to the previous year and a different logging division and those papers were not relevant for the purpose of the present enquiry and hence those irrelevant papers were not supplied to the petitioner. It js further stated in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that the charge of misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 8.03.986.51 was proved against the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that an adverse entry had been awarded to the petitioner earlier and he was given a warning. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner being in-charge of the tendu patta was responsible for storage and welghment and he was found guilty in the enquiry. In paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that all the necessary papers relevant to the enquiry were supplied to the
petitioner. However, those records which had no relevance were not supplied to him. In paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the committee as directed in the Nldeshika and by the higher authority was not constituted and persons who were not authorized to be the member of the committee were made members of the committee. In paragraph 43 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriating the corporation money and embezzlement. In paragraph 46 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the shortage up to 2% was
deliberately shown by the petitioner for unlawful gain.
11. We have also perused the rejoinder-affidavit.
12. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. It appears that the procedure which was fixed by the forest corporation was that if the shortfall in the weight of bag is less than 2%, then the weight should be verified by the logging officer of the division, and in case the shortfall is more than 2%, then it should be verified by a committee consisting of the Divisional Logging Manager, logging officer and godown officer vide Annexure-S.C.A. 4, The petitioner did not follow this procedure and hence he committed misconduct. Neither the competent persons were deputed to verify the weight nor the competent committee as directed by the order dated 18.8.1992 was constituted by the petitioner.
13. It appears that the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer. The charge-sheet was tried to be served upon him but he managed to avoid service. Ultimately the Regional Manager of the Corporation constituted a committee of three persons to serve the charge-sheet but the committee also could not find the petitioner in order to serve him. They ultimately pasted the charge-sheet on the petitioner’s residence on 15.7.1997 and a press release was given in the newspapers Dainik Jagaran and Rastriya Sahara on 17.7.1997 about the charge-sheet. Thereafter the petitioner received the charge-sheet on 22.7.1997 wherein he was allowed 15 days’ time to submit his reply. On 1.8.1997 the petitioner moved an application before the enquiry officer for extending time to file his reply to 21.8.1997 but the petitioner did not file his reply even on 21.8.1997. Hence the enquiry officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry which he completed on 13.9.1997. The petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer but on the other hand, approached the Managing Director for showing the
record and in pursuance to the direction of the Managing Director the petitioner was shown the entire record on 16.9.1997. Thereafter the petitioner filed his reply on 9.10.1997. The Managing Director in order to be fair sent the reply of the petitioner to the enquiry officer to supplement his report and the enquiry officer after going through the reply submitted a supplementary report dated 20.2.1998. The Managing Director sent the enquiry report dated 13.9.1997 and supplementary report dated 20.2.1998 to the petitioner calling upon him to give his reply and the petitioner sent his reply by letter dated 30.3.1998. Thereafter the impugned order was passed.
14. In our opinion, there is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondent and there was no violation of natural justice. The petitioner was given full opportunity of placing his defence. The petitioner was avoiding completion of the enquiry and for this purpose, he was procrastinating in the matter. It appears that for this reason, he insisted that the record pertaining to Obra and Renukoot division be shown to him, which were irrelevant.
15. The enquiry officer has gone into the matter in great detail and found the charges against the petitioner proved. It was found that the petitioner gave misleading information about shortfall in the weight of the bad of tendu leaves and the shortfall in the weight was shown for the purpose of misappropriation of money of the corporation in collusion with the subordinate staff. Neither the competent persons nor the competent committee as mentioned in the order dated 18.8.1992 was constituted by the petitioner.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. At any event, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.