Narpat Singh v. Managing Director Uttarakhand Van

appearing on behalf of the respondent. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was an Assistant Logging Officer in (cid:147)Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam, Dehradun(cid:148), challenging his dismissal order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Managing Director, (cid:147)Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam, Dehradun(cid:148). The respondent has filed counter affidavit, of which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Pleadings in this case are complete. Initially, a learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 31.8.2010, as according to the learned Single Judge the matter was cognizable by the State Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun. All the same, this was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal, where the ground taken by the petitioner was that the State Public Service Commission is not functioning in its full capacity, as presently there is no Administrative 2 Member, therefore the Special Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to be heard by the learned Single Judge on its merit. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally. The principal and legal contention of the petitioner is that this is a case of (cid:147)double jeopardy(cid:148), inasmuch as, on the same set of charges, punishment order dated

5.9.2002 was passed and this order was subsequently set aside by order dated 13.9.2002 by the Managing Director and, hence, on the same charges, a disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon Articles 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. This argument of the petitioner is absolutely misplaced, inasmuch as, admittedly the appointing authority of an Assistant Logging Officer is Managing Director and the initial punishment order dated 5.9.2002 was earlier passed by the General Manager (production). This order was subsequently set aside by the Managing Director vide his order dated 13.9.2002 on account of the fact that the General Manager was not a competent authority to pass the punishment order. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated (cid:147)de novo(cid:148), against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet by the Managing Director. An Enquiry Officer was also appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and departmental proceedings proceed where full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. In total, there were eight charges framed against the petitioner. All these charges were pertaining to the period 1997-98 and 1998-99, when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Logging Officer at (cid:147)Koria Range(cid:148) of Forest Department. All these charges relate to illegal felling of trees, misappropriation 3 of public fund, embezzlement, etc. In short, all these charges are extremely serious in nature. The brief discussion of the charges, the reply of the incumbent i.e. the petitioner on those charges, the report of the enquiry officer on those charges and the ultimate finding given in the proceeding is as follows :- Charge no. 1 pertains to the year 1998-99, where the petitioner was charged that in his area the production of Eucalyptus trees was less than what was projected and the relevant form i.e. Form No. 1.1 was deliberately not filled. Therefore, the petitioner was charged as the lots in his area were extremely low. There were also reports that theft has taken place of these lots and the petitioner has done nothing on his account to stop theft and in fact he was also charged for making wrong entries in the record and has thus caused the Forest Department Corporation a financial loss. The petitioner gave vague reply to these charges and has primarily held working condition of the department responsible for this. He says that this area is extremely sensitive for theft. For non-filling of Form 1.1 he blames his subordinate officials. In other words, he denies the charges. The enquiry officer in his report has submitted that as per the projections and calculation of the department, the production of timber wood should have been

15069.4008 cubic metre against which the production has only been of 13315.5307 cubic metre for which responsibility was framed on petitioner. It was also held in the report that the petitioner was responsible for not filling the relevant form and charge was proved against him. The finding which has been given on this is that the decrease in production, non-filling of Form 1.1, the theft 4 in the area, for all these the petitioner was responsible. In other words, charge stand proved against the petitioner. The second charge against the petitioner was for the year 1998-99, where regarding eight lots of timber of ‘ 475854.65 was recorded as having spent and a further amount of ‘ 60350/- was shown as having spent in the cash-book i.e. a total of ‘ 5,36,204.85. These are all forged payment. No actual payment was made and hence the petitioner has embezzled this amount. In reply the petitioner has stated that these bills have been paid. No workers have come forward saying that the amount has not been paid. The stamp paper is there on the record without signature which is a defect of the department and the concerned officer and the petitioner cannot be blamed for it. Enquiry officer had concluded that out of the total amount of ‘ 536204.65, the petitioner was responsible for embezzlement of ‘ 321722.79 which should be recovered from him and the rest amount should be recovered from the accountant and other concerned officer. The department has agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and has recorded that the petitioner has embezzled the amount of ‘ 321722.79 and caused loss to the department as such. The third charge was relating to period 1998-99, where the petitioner had withdrawn an amount of ‘ 459928/- and ‘ 4745.85 without getting it approved from the appropriate authority. This charge is also proved against the petitioner. The rest of the charges are similar in nature. In short, all the charges are of serious nature and the department has rightly come to the conclusion after considering the reply of the petitioner that all the charges against the petitioner stand proved. 5 This Court has examined the charges framed against the petitioner, the reply of the petitioner of the said charges, other documents as well as the impugned order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Managing Director, (cid:147)Uttarakhand Van Vikash Nigam, Dehradun(cid:148). Out of the eight charges, seven has been proved against the petitioner and the remaining charge no. 8 has been partially proved. There is no procedural lapse in the disciplinary proceedings. On merits also, there is no occasion to disagree with the findings of either the Enquiry Officer or the Punishing Authority. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the writ petition. Writ petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

30.12.2010 Avneet