IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7933 of 2008. Reserved on: 15.6.2009. Decided on : 19.6.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Santosh Singh Mehta … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum issued in the month of May, 1994. He filed detailed reply to the same. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 21.12.1994. Initially, Mr. Parvesh Kumar and Mr. V.K. Singh were appointed Inquiry Officers. Dr. M.B. Srivastava, D.F.O., Jubbal was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 26.9.1998. He submitted the inquiry report dated 7.3.1999 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 2.7.2001. He submitted the reply to the same on 16.7.2001. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner, imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,61,287/- from the petitioner, vide letter dated 7.8.2001. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer are contrary to facts and are based on conjectures and surmises. He further contended that his client has taken prompt action by preparing damage reports on 29.3.1994 and 30.3.1994 and thereafter, it was for the higher authorities to take action. He then contended that the Flying Squad had visited the spot on 6.4.1994 and before that his client had prepared the damage report on 29.3.1994 and 30.3.1994. He lastly contended that the timber was used by the residents of the area for cremation. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner vide Annexure A-7 dated 2.7.2001. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file reply to the memorandum Annexure A-1. It was only after the reply was furnished by the petitioner, Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer had submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty as mentioned in earlier portion of the judgment. Mr. L.N. Sharma has argued that his client has acted in accordance with law by preparing the damage reports on 29.3.1994 and 30.3.1994 when he detected the illicit felling in Navi and Dhanara areas and in DPF Khora (C-IV) and Shilla (C 2 & 3). He further argued that it was only at the instance of these damage reports that F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Theog. In all, 340 trees of various species and diameter classes were found 3 removed in Navi area, 26 trees on spot I and 27 trees on spot II in Dhanara area. These numbers are in conformity with D.R. No. 13 (D-5) issued on 29.3.1994 and D.R. No. 14 (D-6) issued on 30.4.1994. In fact, the complaints were received from the O.S.D., Flying Squad by the CCF (T) in the month of February, 1994 as is evident from Annexure R-1. It is apparent from Annexure R-1 that illicit felling had started taking place ten months back before the issuance of damage reports on 29.3.1994 and 30.3.1994. It was the duty cast upon the petitioner to ensure that no illicit felling of trees takes place in his jurisdiction. It was his duty to ensure that F.I.R. was registered immediately after the issuance of damage reports on 29.3.1994 and 30.3.1994. The spot was visited by the Flying Squad between 6.4.1994 and 8.4.1994. F.I.R. has been registered at Police Station, Chopal on 10.4.1994 after the Flying Squad verified the spot and started investigating the matter vigorously. The Flying Squad had visited the spot after the complaint was received by the CCF (T) in the month of February, 1994. The petitioner has taken defence before the Inquiry Officer that few trees were felled by local villagers for cremation purpose. He has relied upon Exts. D-7 to D-10. Exhibit D-10 is un-dated, death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. The Inquiry Officer after taking into consideration the contents of Ext. D-7 has come to a right conclusion that II-A and II-B trees were never granted for the purpose of cremation. He has found discrepancies the manner the entries were also made in Ext. D-7. Similarly in Ext.D-8 Deodar III has been shown for burning the dead body of Munni on 4.2.1994. In Ext. D-8, there was tampering with the record. No entry has been made as to how many trees were 4 sanctioned including their numbers. In Ext. D-9, three trees of Deodar IA, IA & IIB have been entered. The timber was never sanctioned by the Divisional Forest Officer. It is apparent that the petitioner to save himself had manipulated the entries in Exts. D-7, D-8 and D-9. The Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The learned counsel could not point out any breach of mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has been granted opportunity to defend himself during the course of disciplinary proceedings. He was also heard by the Disciplinary Authority before imposition of penalty. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby penalty has been imposed on the petitioner on 7.8.2001 is a reasoned order. The petitioner has made the entries in the T.D. register without sanctioning orders. He has failed to detect illicit felling of trees and was remiss in taking prompt action against the accused persons. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 19, 2009. (cr)