Regular Second Appeal No.3192 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 17, 2010 State of Haryana & another ...Appellants VERSUS Om Parkash Dhillon ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent-plaintiff was posted as Forest Guard in Forest Office, Jind. He was served a charge sheet on 11.8.2000 with the allegation of illegal cutting of forest trees due to his connivance, mis-use of power and negligence of duties. Respondent-plaintiff replied to this charge sheet. The plea is that relevant record in the Regular Second Appeal No.3192 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : form of diaries available with the Range/Asstt.Range Forest Officer were not shown to the Respondent-plaintiff and, thus, he was deprived of the opportunity of being heard. Some other submissions are also made on merits. It is also noticed from the record that the Enquiry Officer was detailed to go into the charges alleged against Respondent- plaintiff and after recording evidence, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges preferred against Respondent-plaintiff were not established and accordingly he exonerated him of the charge. The enquiry proceedings were returned to the Enquiry Officer on the ground that these were incomplete. It was observed that the Enquiry Officer has not enquired into all the allegations against Respondent-plaintiff and, thus, he was asked to give his complete report on all points. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted another report finding the Respondent-plaintiff guilty of the allegations/charges. The competent authority agreed with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the Respondent-plaintiff on 22.6.2001 to which he replied. After considering the reply, the Respondent-plaintiff was directed to pay Rs.43,175/- as compensation of some trees etc. He accordingly has challenged this order by filing the civil suit. The plea was that the Respondent-plaintiff was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. Otherwise also, he was unnecessarily blamed subsequently by the same Enquiry Officer, though he was earlier exonerated. This was on the basis of evidence given by Dharam Pal, who, according to the counsel for the Respondent-plaintiff, was co-accused and as such was not worthy of Regular Second Appeal No.3192 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : reliance. The counsel would further contend that no opportunity to cross-examine this witness was afforded to the Respondent-plaintiff and, thus, the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of this material cannot be sustained. Faced with this situation, Mr.Nehra says that even if this defect is noticed in the procedure, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B.Karunakar, 1994(1) S.C.T. 319 would regulate the situation. Mr.Nehra says that the appellants are prepared to start the enquiry from the stage wherefrom this infirmity is noticed. The course suggested by the State counsel is not only fair but legally approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL's case (supra). The appellants are directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff to cross-examine the witness Dharam Pal. It is also noticed that one of the reason advanced by the respondent-plaintiff is that he was not allowed to inspect the concerned documents. To ensure fairness, it would be appropriate to direct the State to allow access to all the documents necessary for preparation of defence by the Respondent-plaintiff. While setting-aside the direction for recovery from the Respondent- plaintiff, the appellants are given liberty to start the enquiry from the stage where Dharam Pal was examined as a witness but was not permitted to be cross-examined. Respondent-plaintiff would be given proper and due opportunity to cross-examine this witness. He shall also be given liberty to state anything he would wish to state further in his defence or to examine any further witness. If he wants access Regular Second Appeal No.3192 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : to any documents, which are relevant, the same should also be provided to him. The appellate authority would thereafter be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. If any party still feels aggrieved against the same, it would be entitled to take any appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. As a result, the decrees passed in favour of the Respondent-plaintiff by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court are set-aside. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. May 17, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE