WRIT PETITION NO. 359 (SS) OF 2003 v. General Manager, Uttaranchal Forest Corporation Camp

Judgment

1. General Manager, Uttaranchal Forest Corporation Camp Office Managing Director Aranya Vikas Bhawan 73 Nehru Road, Dehradun.

2. Regional Manager, (East), Uttaranchal, Forest Corporation 2/21 Civil Line Bhotiya Padawa Haldwani, Nainital.

3. Regional Sales Manager Forest Corporation Haldwani. …………..Respondents. Dated: 22.08.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

Heard Sri Zafar Ullah siddiquee & Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Sushil Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th August, 2001 and 29.05.2003 (Annexures 6 and 9 respectively to the writ petition) passed by the respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively. 2

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is working on the post of Scalar Class-IV in the Forest Corporation of Uttaranchal. On 5th April, 1999, the Regional Sales Manager Forest Corporation Haldwani suspended the service of the petitioner on the ground of intoxication in public place.

4. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a representation dated 09.04.1999 before the respondent no. 3 denying all the allegations leveled in the suspension order dated 05.04.1999.

5. However, on 11th Nay, 1999, the respondent no. 3 vide letter No. 563 reinstated the services of petitioner and transferred the petitioner at Almora. However, after expiry of one year of the suspension, the petitioner received a charge sheet dated 27.06.2000 from the office of respondent no. 3 where it has been stated that the petitioner was found in intoxicated condition on 27.02.1999 in the guest house of the Forest Corporation, Haldwani.

6. On 21st September, 2000, the petitioner submitted his explanation against the charge sheet and denied all the charges leveled against him. However, on 16.08.2001, after the enquiry on the alleged charges, the Enquiry Officer Sri A.K. Jain Regional Sales Manager Nainital submitted his enquiry report stating therein that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Relevant portion of the enquiry report is quoted below:- foJke ^^Jh fotsUnz dqekj f?kfYM;ky] nSfud Ldsyj dks fnukad 27-2-99 dks cu frdksfu;k gY}kuh ij u’khys nzO;ksa dk lsou dj minzo djus o muds bl d`R; gsrq iqfyl }kjk fxjQ~rkj dj Fkkuk gY}kuh esa j[krs rFkk muds fo:) vijk/k la0 489@99 iathd`r djus ds dkj.k vkjksfir fd;k Hkou 3 x;kA Jh f?kfYM;ky ls lEcfU/kr vkjksi i= dh tkap Jh ,0ds0 tSu] izHkkxh; ykSfxax izcU/kd uSuhrky }kjk dh x;h tkap vk[;k esa tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fy[kk x;k gS fd Jh fotsUnz dqekj f?kfYM;ky ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi fl) ugha gksrk gS rFkk foi{kh f?kfYM;ky dks u’khys nzO;ksa dk lsou djus gsrq ladsr fd;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vr% tkap vf/kdkjh ds vk[;k o {kss=h; izca/kd] mRrj cu fodkl fuxe uSuhrky f?kfYM;ky] dh i= la0 fn0 10-8-01 ds }kjk vuqeksfnr n.M ds vuqlkj Jh f?kfYM;ky laoxZ Ldsyj ds fo:) fuEu n.M ikfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA 1830@vuq0dk;Z0 Jh fotsUnz dqekj n.M la0&1 Jh fotsUndqekj f?kfYM;ky] laoxZ Ldsyj dks u’khys nzO;ksa ds lsou djus gsrq fofnr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh f?kfYM;ky ds lsokfHkys[kksa esa bl vk’k; dh izfof”V djrs gq, pfj= iaftdk esa izfrdwy izfof”V dh tkrh gSA**

7. However, he has warned the petitioner for the alleged incident and the respondent no. 2 passed an order imposing penalty on the petitioner for taking intoxicating materials and imposing an adverse entry in the service book of the petitioner.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.2. The respondent no. 2 refused to accept the appeal.

9. The petitioner has submitted that inquiry report has not been submitted to him as will appear from the perusal of the order itself that the petitioner was not supplied the enquiry report. Relevant paragraph 6 is quoted below:- ^^6- mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij esjk Li”V er gS fd fn;s x;s n.Mksa ds fy, tkWap fjiksVZ esa i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA fn;s x;s n.M y?kq n.Mksa dh Js.kh esa u gksus ds dkj.k tkWap fjiksVZ dh izfr vkjksih dks miyC/k djkuk vko’;d ugha FkkA vr% Jh f?kfYM;ky ds izR;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k 4 djrs gq, vkns’k fn;s tkrs gSa fd f?kfYM;ky dks fn;s x;s n.M ;Fkkor jgsaxsA**

10. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that some criminal case is pending against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has disputed the same in the rejoinder affidavit. He has stated that so far as the criminal case is concerned, final report has been filed on 29.10.2001 to the following effect:- ^^fn0& 29@10@2001 i=koyh is’k gq;h gSA iqdkj ij vfHk;qDr gkft~j ugha gSA ;g ekeyk fn0 01@04@99 ls yafcr gSA vHkh rd vfHk;qDr ij leu dh rkehy ugha gq;h gS vkSj u gh vfHk;qDr mifLFkr gqvkA ekeyk ek= /kkjk&34 iqfyl ,DV ls lacaf/kr gSA ftls nks o”kZ N% ekg ls vf/kd dk le; gks x;k gS] ijUrq vfHk;qDr dk dksbZ irk ugha yx jgk gSA vr% ekeys dh dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fjV la0 1286@86 dkSeu dkst cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bafM;k ds vuqikyu esa lekIr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA**

11. In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner has not been given the inquiry report there being a cross violation of the judgment of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramjan 1991 (1) SCC Page 588. It is well settled that any order against the petitioner should have been communicated to the petitioner as order regarding the adverse entry affects the right of the petitioner and as such the same should have been communicated to the petitioner along with the inquiry report. Opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to meet the charges from the order itself. 5

12. Since it has come on the record that no charges have been proved and further no inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner, remark against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer is wholly unwarranted in view of the judgment D.Paul Vs. Nawab Ali Akhtar (2001) 10 SCC 501. The observations are quoted below:- “2. The appellant was acquitted of offences under Sections 381 and 411 IPC and a revision petitioner filed by the respondent against the order of acquittal was dismissed by the High Court on 20.9.1999. After dismissing the revision petition, the High Court observed: “It is stated that the departmental proceeding is pending against Opposite Parties 2 and 3. It goes without saying that the departmental proceeding will be disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law without being influenced by the order of acquittal ion a criminal case.”

3. In our opinion, the above observations were not required to be made by the High Court while dismissing revision petition. These observations shall, therefore, stand deleted. We clarify that the question whether the order of acquittal can have any effect on the departmental proceedings or in the civil case will have to be decided at the appropriate stage by the appropriate forum.”

13. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the adverse entry, which has been given against the petitioner is without any rhyme or reason.

14. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 16.08.2001 and 29.05.2003 (Annexure No. 6 and 9 to 6 the writ petition) passed by the respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively.

15. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

22.08.2006 Rathour (Rajesh Tandon, J.)