IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4216/2008 (OA 418/97) Date of Decision : May 4, 2009 Sh. Subhash Singh Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation through its Managing Director, Shimla (HP) and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following reliefs: “(i) That order dated 5.2.1993 (Annexure A-1) may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant to work as Timber Watcher on daily wages basis in Fatehpur Unit, H.P. State Forest Corporation Division Fatehpur, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) Directing the respondents to regularise the services of the applicant with all consequential benefits.” Annexure A-1 is the order dispensing with the petitioner’s service which is reproduced as under: “OFFICE ORDER No. 117/92-93 Shri Subhash Singh son of Shri Jit Singh, Timber Watcher/(Daily waged) was appointed as Lot incharge Lot No. 31/91-92/Cheel. After the labour of Labour Supply Mate left the work, the work of the lot was being done at the departmental level under the supervision of Shri Subhash Singh, Timber Watcher. There seems to be some theft of forest product in connivance with Lot Incharge, who felled 15 pine trees in an illegal manner to replenish the same. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nurpur vide his letter No. 150-64 dated 27.1.1993 has sent the bill of damages to the tune of Rs. 2,12,906 for illegal felling of 15 trees. This matter was got inquired into by the Assistant Manager Fatehpur and Shri Subhash Singh, Timber Watcher, admitted that he had illegally felled 15 pine trees. Therefore, keeping the facts and the office of the illegal felling of Pine trees by Shri Subhash Singh, Timber Watcher (daily wage), the services of Shri Subhash Singh, Timber Watcher, are dispensed with, with effect from the issuance of the date of this order.” 3 While working as Timber Watcher action was taken against the petitioner. The order is assailed on the ground that in criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner he stands acquitted in terms of judgment dated 10.10.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, Kangra, H.P. (Annexure-A/A). I am afraid action against the petitioner was not initiated on the basis of registration of FIR or initiation of criminal prosecution. Hence acquittal in criminal case shall have no bearing on the disciplinary action taken by the respondent. The petitioner was duly informed of the contemplated action. Infact in terms of letter dated 1/2-2-1993 (Annexure R-II), petitioner has admitted having felled 15 Chil trees to meet up the deficiency in the stocks of fuel wood which he was supposed to guard. According to the petitioner signatures were obtained from him on blank papers. However this allegation stand refuted by the respondent/State. Prior to the filing of his first petition before the Tribunal in the year 1993, petitioner did not vent his grievance with any of the authorities that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers by his superior officers. The defence taken appears to be an after thought. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kuldip Singh versus State of H.P. and another, ILR 1987 HP 629 4 and Tek Chand versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1986 Sim. L.C. 256. I am afraid the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions does not apply to the facts of the present case. It is not a case where the petitioner was not made aware of the action contemplated against him. In the present case, petitioner had admitted his misconduct. Therefore, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice stand violated. He was daily wager yet opportunity to respond was afforded to him. For the aforesaid reasons the present petition without any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 4, 2009 (PK)