IN THE IIIGH COURT OF SIKKIM ORDER SHEET Writ crl . ) COURT ON SUO MOT`J Versu.s . No. 6 of#2003 Petitioner/Appellalit Respondent 4.18. •2004 31.3.2 Put up on 31.3.2004 for necessary orders. In the lreanwhile. learned Advcoate General undertakes to file §tatiis report. ( N'.:3a¥S¥+ tchRie¥. Juag\E CThief Justice 4 This writ petition was registered on the basis of an anonymous letter wherein it was alleged that the State Government .is trying to protect and sriield T. R. Shapna,. Pr.incipal CCF-cum-Secretary iF t\he Forest Department although he possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was also alleged th.at.in the recruitment of Forest Guards lot of irregularities had been committed. by him. 2. We have heard Shri S. P. Wangdi, learned Advocate General. We have also perused the report affirmed by Shri D. P. Sharma, Additional Secretary in the Home Department of the State Government. 3. So far as the allegation o€ disproportionate assets by T. R. Sharma is concerned, it appears question was raised on this issue by the then leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly in F`ebruary, 2602 and it was replied by the iniriister concerned saying that the State Vigilance Department enquired into the matter and did not rind a prima facie case of disproportionate assets against the said ofricer. On perusal of the report submitted by the Additional Secretary of the Home *EL` a ' \J .,i SerialNo.ofOrder D&6of•Order Order with Signature Oflice Note as totaackt::no(njf6:g!r ' at/ Department, it appears the Vigilance Department of the State Government investigated the matter during 1985, 1989 and 1998 and they did not find a prima facie case against the concerned officer. The Director of Vigilance himself reviewed the investigation in the year 2002 and he also did not find any material in support of the allegation of disproportionate assets held by the concerned officer. On consideration of the facts mentioned above, we do not find any basis to take a different view in the matter. 4. With regard to the alleged irregularity of recruitment of Forest Guards, we find that the matter was examined by a Special Officer appointed by this Court and no significant difference could be noticed in the list prepared by the Selection Committee. The aforesaid allegation of irregular recruitment was also examined by the learned Advocate General, who also did not find any substance in it. This being the factual position, there appears to be no valid foundation in the allegation made in the anonymous letter.F`orthereasonsaforesaid,wedonotfind any merit in the letter and accordingly the writ petition is re.ected. N.EL- ( N. S.ysingh ) ( R. E:.rpatra ) Judge Chdeif Jfustiee