RSA No.177 v. RSA N

Judgment

1. This order of mine shall dispose o This o egular ose of both afore-captioned regular second appea appeals preferred by the appellants lants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009 passed by the Court by the learned lower Appellate Court whereby the y the appeal preferred by the app

st the he appellants-defendants against the judgment an nt and decree dated 07.01.2005 pas Court passed by the learned trial Court partly decree decreeing the suit of the responden ondent-plaintiff for declaration with consequentia uential relief of mandatory injunctio nd the unction, has been dismissed and the appeal prefer preferred by respondent-plaintiff aga nt and ff against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the of the learned trial Court, has been al ecreed een allowed and his suit was decreed in toto. PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.177 1772 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

2. Succinctly, the facts are that the res Succin he respondent-plaintiff has retired as Deputy Rang Ranger of Forest on 31.12.2001. He rge of . He remained posted as Incharge of Saha Block o lock of Ambala Forest (Territorial) D f four rial) Division which consisted of four beats namely amely Nagla, Kesri, Kalpi and Gagan Gaganheri. One Forest Guard namely Chiranji Lal Lal was Incharge of Kesri Beat and to 12 and Nagla Beat for the last 10 to 12 years and So nd Sodagar Mal was Incharge of Ka Forest of Kalpi Beat. Chiranji Lal, Forest Guard while while being Incharge of Kesri Beat, h s, who eat, had associated with persons, who were engaged ngaged in the business of illegal cutti l cutting down of trees and when the respondent- -plaintiff took charge of Saha Blo ri Beat ha Block, he inspected the Kesri Beat area under th der the charge of Chiranji Lal and fo and found heavy illegal cutting down of trees. He . He reported the matter to the Div he Divisional Forest Officer, Ambala through Rang h Range Officer, Ambala along with t m the with the complaint received from the Forest Guard Guard for taking necessary action. O iranji ion. On the said complaint, Chiranji Lal was char s chargesheeted and a regular enqui t him. enquiry was conducted against him. The process o ocess of cutting down of dead, dry an by the dry and fallen trees was started by the Haryana Fore a Forest Development Corporation Am ruary, tion Ambala in the month of February, 1998 and dur nd during the said process, Range Fore e Forest Officer, Ambala got annoyed with Sodagar odagar Mal, Forest Guard and threate It is hreatened him to teach a lesson. It is the Forest Gu est Guard, who holds physical charge eas the harge of a beat under him whereas the Forester or t r or the Deputy Ranger, which is th rforms h is the next higher cadre, performs supervisory d isory duties. On 20.04.1998, the respo letter e respondent-plaintiff received a letter from the Di he Divisional Forest Officer, Amba on for Ambala seeking his explanation for illegal cutting cutting down of 261 trees in Kalpi b alpi beat and was also placed under suspension b sion by the Conservator of Forest, No st, North Circle, Panchkula vide order dated 05.05.1

05.05.1998 and Sodagar Mal, Forest Forest Guard was also placed under PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.177 1772 of 2010 (O&M) -3- suspension f n for illegal cutting down of 74 Forest of 74 trees by the Divisional Forest Officer, Am r, Ambala vide order dated 19.03.1 mental 9.03.1998. A regular departmental enquiry was was conducted against the respond report spondent-plaintiff and enquiry report (Ex.P6) was ) was submitted by the Enquiry Office as not Officer wherein charge No.1 was not proved again against him and the remaining ch d. In ng charges were partly proved. In pursuance of nce of said enquiry report, first show

4.2000 t show cause notice dated 11.04.2000 (Ex.P5) was ) was issued, which was duly replied 7). In eplied by him vide reply (Ex.P7). In pursuance of nce of show cause notice dated 11.04 ery of 11.04.2000, a penalty for recovery of Rs.85,332/- - and stoppage of one annual incre effect l increment without cumulative effect was imposed posed upon him vide order dated 04.1 by the ed 04.10.2000 (Ex.P43) passed by the Conservator vator of Forest, North Circle, Haryan e said aryana, Panchkula. Against the said order, an ap an appeal was preferred by the r re the the respondent-plaintiff before the Principal Chi al Chief Conservator of Forest but no on the but no relief was granted to him on the ground that s that since the Court had stayed the im gainst the implementation of penalty against Sodagar Mal r Mal, Forest Guard, who was main enalty main accused, the amount of penalty be recovered overed from the respondent-plaintiff laintiff to the extent of Rs.56,888/ ,888/-. Thereafter, an fter, another show cause notice dated issued dated 18.12.2001 (Ex.P49) was issued on the basi basis of inquiry report (Ex.P6), y the x.P6), which was received by the respondent- -plaintiff on 08.01.2002. Howev

2.2001 owever, vide order dated 31.12.2001 (Ex.P48), an 8), an amount of Rs.52,763/- was ord him. as ordered to be recovered from him. Surprisingly, ingly, on the basis of same enquiry nquiry report (Ex.P6), another order dated 18.03.2

18.03.2002 (Ex.P50) was passed by fficer, ed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ambala whe a whereby penalty for recovery of R on the of Rs.8875/- was imposed upon the respondent- -plaintiff without issuing any sh rieved any show cause notice. Aggrieved PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.177 1772 of 2010 (O&M) -4- against the a t the aforesaid orders, the present sui ndent- ent suit was filed by the respondent plaintiff.

3. The ap appellants-defendants appeared an raising ared and contested the suit by raising preliminary o inary objections qua cause of action n false and the suit being based on false and frivolous volous facts. On merit, it was stated egular stated that after conducting a regular departmental ental enquiry, the respondent-plaint illegal plaintiff was found guilty of illegal felling of tree of trees and therefore, based on the e ers of the enquiry report (Ex.P6), orders of penalty dated dated 04.10.2000, 31.12.2001 and 1 gainst and 18.03.2002 were issued against him. The afo he aforesaid orders were passed in acc refore, in accordance with law and therefore, prayed for dis for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned On the any as earned trial Court framed as many as five issues including relief. Parties led the nd on led their respective evidence and on appreciation iation of the documentary as well as d trial ell as oral evidence, the learned trial Court partly y decreed the suit, however, in the ferred , in the two separate appeals preferred by the app e appellants-defendants and the re st the the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and nt and decree of the learned trial Cou pellate ial Court, the learned lower Appellate Court while while allowing the appeal of the respo is suit e respondent-plaintiff decreed his suit in toto and d and dismissed the appeal of the app in this e appellants-defendants. It is in this background, d, two regular second appeals ar llants- eals are preferred by the appellants defendants against the judgment and decree pellate decree passed by the lower Appellate Court.

5. Learned State counsel appearing o Learne llants- ring on behalf of the appellants defendants ants argued that the impugned orders .2000, orders of penalties dated 04.10.2000,

31.12.2001 a 001 and 18.03.2002 were imposed up ff after sed upon the respondent-plaintiff after conducting a ting a regular departmental enquiry enquiry and due opportunities were PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.177 1772 of 2010 (O&M) -5- afforded to th d to the respondent-plaintiff for defen le 2.5 r defending himself. As per Rule 2.5 of the Haryan Haryana Forest Manual Vol.II, the Blo nsible he Block Incharge is fully responsible for protection tection of trees and since the respond charge spondent-plaintiff, being the Incharge of concerned cerned Block was responsible for ille es, the for illegal cutting down of trees, the learned lowe wer Appellate Court gravely erre of the ly erred in decreeing the suit of the respondent- -plaintiff. It was further argued t gued that order dated 04.10.2000 was speaking ord ng order and therefore, the finding of of the lower Appellate Court that the said order d order was bereft of reasoning is not c s not correct.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearin Per co laintiff ppearing for the respondent-plaintiff submitted th that the judgment and decree ecree passed by the learned lower Appellate Co ate Court is based upon correct app w and ct appreciation of fact and law and therefore, the re, the same does not require any int egular any interference in the instant regular second appea appeals.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the I have or the parties and have gone through paper book with their able assistance.

8. As regards order dated 18.03.2002 As reg ds no .2002 (Ex.P50), this Court finds no perversity in sity in the finding rendered by the lea the learned lower Appellate Court as admittedly, n edly, no show cause notice was iss laintiff as issued to the respondent-plaintiff before passin passing the said order and the said fa said fact was also admitted by DW- -1 Paramjit Sing it Singh. Even the aforesaid order wa ndent- der was passed against the respondent plaintiff after ff after his retirement on 31.12.2001. record 001. Furthermore, a perusal of record of the case re case reveals that the show cause notice 9) was notice dated 18.12.2001 (Ex.P49) was received by t by the respondent-plaintiff on 08.0 of the 08.01.2002 i.e. after passing of the impugned or ned order dated 31.12.2001 (Ex.P48) .P48) and therefore, this Court holds that the imp impugned order dated 31.12.2001 ithout .2001 (Ex.P48) was passed without PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.177 1772 of 2010 (O&M) -6- affording an ng any opportunity of hearing to f and ng to the respondent-plaintiff and therefore, the e, the said order was rightly set aside pellate t aside by the learned lower Appellate Court. Now Now the question with regard to rd to passing of initial order dated

04.10.2000 ( 000 (Ex.P43) by the disciplinary aut at the ry authority, this Court finds that the lower Appell Appellate Court has gravely erred in der by ed in setting aside the said order by holding that g that it was a cryptic order, being be ed law ing bereft of reasons. It is settled law that it is the d is the disciplinary authority, or the app he appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide t cide the nature of punishment to be g ployee o be given to the delinquent employee and the scope scope of judicial review is limited in ited in cases where the enquiry is not held by a co y a competent authority; the enquiry to the enquiry is not held according to the prescribed pr bed procedure; there is violation of th tice in n of the principles of natural justice in conducting t ting the proceedings; the conclusion , is so lusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitr arbitrary and capricious that no reas r have o reasonable person could ever have arrived at suc at such conclusion; the finding of fa ce etc. of fact is based on no evidence etc. The finding o ding of the lower Appellate Court is n resaid urt is not based on any of the aforesaid grounds neith s neither any such argument was rai pellate raised before the lower Appellate Court, as is as is evident from perusal of the j f the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Co ate Court. A perusal of the order dat eveals er dated 04.10.2000 (Ex.P43) reveals that the disc e disciplinary authority after taking nquiry aking into consideration the enquiry report, reply reply of the respondent-plaintiff and rtunity ff and affording personal opportunity of hearing to ring to him found that the respondent protect ondent-plaintiff was unable to protect the trees stan es standing in the Block to which he on’ble ich he was incharge of. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court in Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lak SCC . Lakhimi Golia Bank (2021) 3 SCC 806 has held s held that it is well settled that if the d pts the if the disciplinary authority accepts the finding recor recorded by the enquiry officer an etailed cer and passes an order, no detailed PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.177 1772 of 2010 (O&M) -7- reasons are r s are required to be recorded in the or t. The the order imposing punishment. The punishment i ment is imposed based on the findings report, ndings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no h, no further elaborate reasons are y the s are required to be given by the disciplinary a ary authority.

9. n view of the judgments passed by In view ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi kshi (Dead) through Legal Rep Vs. Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika a ka and others (2016) 6 SCC 157 i Pal 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and ot nd others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gu Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gur Gurcharan Singh (dead) through L of law gh LRs and others, questions of law are not requ t required to be framed in second b and cond appeal before the Punjab and Haryana Hig a High Court whose jurisdiction is ons of on is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

10. As an As an upshot of above discussion ussion, judgment and decree dated

29.04.2009 passed by the learned lower Ap to the er Appellate Court is set aside to the extent of se of setting aside the impugned orde d order dated 04.10.2000 (Ex.P43) .P43). Consequently uently order dated 04.10.2000 (Ex.P (Ex.P43) is upheld. However, since vide order da der dated 29.12.2001 (Ex.P47), appell appellant-defendant No.3 had reduced the amount o ount of recovery to Rs.56,888/- from d vide from Rs.85,332/- as imposed vide order dated 0 ated 04.10.2000 (Ex.P43), recovery ffected overy of the said amount be effected from the res he respondent-plaintiff. Both the reg the regular second appeals are partly allowed. Dec d. Decree sheet be prepared according ordingly. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARP JUDGE ber 20, 2024 November 2 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2024.11.21 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document