IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 15020 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 11, 2010 Sh. Lakhan Pal Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R. S. Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) It is not in dispute that petitioner was working as a Forest Guard in district Bilaspur. It is also not in dispute that certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for having misconducted himself in the course of discharge of his duties. Inquiry Officer was appointed who furnished his report (Annexure A- 3). Disciplinary authority did not find favour with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, consequently show cause notice (Annexure A-4) was issued to petitioner to which he responded. Disciplinary authority did not find favour with the petitioner’s contentions and consequently Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 imposed penalty in terms of order dated 19.12.2001 (Annexure A-6) which reads as under:- “OFFICE ORDER No. 208/2001-2002, Dated Bilaspur, the 19 Dec 2001 WHEREAS a common disciplinary proceedings were instituted against S/Sh. Vikram Singh, Deputy Ranger and Lakhan Pal, Forest Guard of Bilaspur Forest Division and chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was duly served upon the said delinquent officials vide C.F. Bilaspur Memo No. 10978 dated 12.2.1999 for the following charges: i) Dereliction in performance of Govt. duty. ii) Pecuniary loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 78,961/- due to illicit/un-authorised felling and uprooting of Khair trees in Behal beat of Swarghat Range of Bilaspur Forest Division. iii) Un-authorised realization of Rs. 40,000/- and non- deposit into Govt. treasury by Sh. Lakhan Pal, F. Gd. AND WHEREAS they were given Show Cause Notice with an opportunity of making any representation as may wish in writing or verbally on the proposed penalty vide this office order No. 83/2001-02 dated 16.6.2001. The above delinquents have submitted their representation on dated nil and 10.7.2001 respectively in which they have explained the position. AND WHEREAS on the consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case it is considered that the conduct of S/Sh. Vikram Singh, Deputy ranger and Lakhan Pal, Forest Guard is such as to warrant the imposition of penalty. NOW the undersigned has gone through the enquiry report and the representation of the delinquents and in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 15(3) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 decides to impose the penalty as proposed i.e. the pecuniary loss to the Government to the 3 tune of Rs. 78,961/- be made good equally from S/Shri Vikram Singh, Deputy Ranger and Shri Lakhan Pal Forest Guard. The penalty of pecuniary loss is, accordingly, hereby imposed on S/Sh. Vikram Singh, Deputy Ranger and Lakhan Pal, Forest Guard. Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur Forest Circle, Bilaspur, H.P.” 2. Aggrieved of the same petitioner filed an appeal which also stands dismissed in terms of order dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure A-8) which reads as under:- “No.Ft. 439-110/74(E.II)Vol-VI Forest Department Himachal Pradesh Dated Shimla-171 001, the 14 OCT 2003 From: Pr. CCF, H.P. Shimla To: C.F. Bilaspur Subject:-Appeal of Shri Lakhanpal, Forest Guard against imposition of penalty of recovery of Rs. 78,961/- from S/Shri Bikkam Singh, D.R. and Lakhanpal, Forest Guard. Memo:- Reference your Memo No.EF/2652 dated 20/06/2002 and No. B.VIII(h)36/5731 dated 29/08/2003, on the subject cited above. 2. The appeal preferred by Shri Lakhanpal, Forest Guard has been examined. The penalty of recovery as imposed vide your office order No. 208/2001-02 dated 19.12.2001 after proper enquiry appears to be justified. The case of illicit felling cannot be viewed with laxity. Therefore the appeal made by the official is considered and hereby rejected. Please inform the official accordingly. 3. The enquiry folders containing pages 1 to 152 (enquiry folder No.1) enquiry folder No. 2 page 1 to 245, 4 enquiry folder No. 3 page 1 to 230 (all in original) as received with your memo referred to above are returned herewith for further necessary action at your end. Encls: As above. Sd/- (1.10.03) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Himachal Pradesh.” 3. Petitioner filed another appeal which stands dismissed in terms of order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure A-10) which reads as under:- “MEMORANDUM Whereas S/Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard and Vikram Singh, Dy. Ranger while posted in Swahan Block, Swarghat Range of Bilaspur Forest Division were chargesheeted by Conservator of Forests Bilaspur on 23.2.1999 and following three articles of charge were levelled against them:- 1) Dereliction in the performance of Govt. duty. 2) Connivance in illicit/unauthorised felling and uprooting of Khair trees in Behal Beat of Swahan Block of Swarghat Range and causing pecuniary loss to the govt. to the tune of Rs. 78,961/-. 3) Un-authorised realization of Rs. 40,000/- Whereas, Sh. Sjay Srivastav, IFS the then Divisional Forest Officer Nalagarh was appointed as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the Articles of charge framed against the said S/Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard and Vikram Singh, Dy. Ranger. Whereas, as per the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officer the charge No. (i) was proved against them and charge No. (ii) & (iii) were not proved. The Inquiry Report was submitted to Conservator of Forests Bilaspur. The Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur after careful consideration proposed to award penalty of recovery of loss from both and vide his memorandum No. 83/2001- 02 dated 16.6.01 granted them opportunity of making 5 representation on the proposed penalty. After considering the representations submitted by S/Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard and Vikram Singh, Dy. Ranger and finding them unsatisfactory, CF Bilaspur imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 78,961/- equally from both vide his Office order No. 208/2001-02 dated 19.12.2001. Whereas Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard preferred an appeal to the Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests vide his letter dated 31.1.01. The PCCF rejected the same vide his letter No. Ft.439-110/74(E-II) Vol-VI dated 14.10.03. Thereafter, Sh. Lakhanpal, Dy. Ranger preferred an appeal to the Pr. Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 26.11.2003. And whereas after careful consideration of the appeal of Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard, the inquiry report and the record of the case, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that although the second charge of connivance in illicit/unauthorised felling and uprooting of Khair trees is not proved it is very much evident that illicit felling took place due to negligence on the part of S/Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard and Vikram Singh, Dy. Ranger. The Block Officer and Forest Guard are required to report each and every happening of the block to their superiors. Such large scale illicit felling cannot take place within a day or two. Therefore, the officials are responsible for causing loss of Rs. 78961/- to the state exchequer. Therefore, the penalty of making good the Government loss of Rs. 78,961/- equally from both S/Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest Guard and Vikram Singh, Dy. Ranger is just and adequate. Now, therefore, the appeal dated 26.11.2003 of Sh. Lakhanpal, Forest guard is hereby rejected. (Ashok Thakur) Principal Secretary(Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh” 6 4. These orders have been impugned by the petitioner in this petition. 5. Now evidently the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeals/representations have neither been adverted to nor considered and decided by the authorities while passing the order. Except for a passing reference about the consideration of the representations there is no reference to the contents thereof. It is actually a non speaking order. Appropriate appellate authority ought to have furnished reasons for accepting or rejecting the same. There are also no reasons on the file. 6. Consequently impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure A- 10) is quashed. Direction is issued to the appropriate appellate authority to decide the case fresh by passing a reasoned and detailed order. Disciplinary proceedings pertain to the year 1999 it is therefore expected of the authority to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 11, 2010 (PK)