w EEFCTtE 1HE M&DHYA PRAE-ESH AE-MrNISTR^ffIVE aRIBU'TM< JBP. ^plicsnt! .O.A.Nctn. to,^y^^^^ Hori Lsl Sahu, agea atout 32 yesrs, sai of Shri K.Eahu, resi-deDt o£ near Ramaysn Cho''ft:» Vlllsge ChaE.QaSe^ Bllaspur, M.P. VS (1) The State of Maohya Predesh through the SeGretary, Forest Deptt. Oovt* o£ !'!•?•» Vallabh Bhawen^ Bhppel, M.p. (2) Chief Conser'yator of Forests, Ma9.hys 'Praaesh, Satpure ,Bhaw@n, Bhppsl^ M.P, (3) Conservator of Porest, Bllaspur, M.P. (4) Divisional Forest office.r, Bilespur, DJ.strict Bilaspur, M,P» 33E2'?iILS OF THE SPPLlCfSKX ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLEMR. SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J. £'<-.:."^. Petitioner WMT PETITION fS.) N0.1120 OF 2005 Hori Lal Sahu versus Resoondents The State ofMadhya Pradesh and others Present : None appears for both the pardes. ORDER (Passed on 23R1 ofAugusl, 2006) The petitioner was initially appointed as COntingency Paid Employee on the post ofDriver in the year 1980. By order dated 6-3-1982 (Annexure A/l), the petitioner was appointed temporarily with a condition thattheservices ofthe petitioner could be terminated any time with one month's notice. The petitiQtier was suspended by order dated 8-7-1988 (Annexure A/2) for misusing official govemment vehicle (Jeep No.CPZ 4083) and for causin; damage to the govemment vehicle by accident, A departmental ^ t£ enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on thecharges ofmisuse of govemment vehicle and further causing damage to the vehicle. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the delinqyent ofEicer - the petitioner had misused the goverament vehicle for his personal use and caused damage in that process to the govemment vehicle. The disciplinary authority, who happened to be the enquiry officer also, by order dated 6-5-1989 (Annexure A/4), removed the petitioner ffom services. 2. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the Conservator ofForest was also dismissed by order dated 20-9-i989 (Annexure A/6). 3. The petitibner preferred a revision before the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted) (Annexure A/7). The same was also dismissed on 10-4-1992 (Annexure A/8). 4. In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 6-5-1989 passed by the disciplinary autfiority (Anriexure A/4), order dated 20-9-1989 passed by the Conservator of Forest (Annexure A/6) and order dated 10-4-1992 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Admimsteation/Non-Gazetted) (Annexure A/8) on the ground that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend his case. The representations made by the petitioner were also not considered in their proper perspective. 5. On perosal of the pleadings and documents, it is evident that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on sufiEcient evidence and there is no in-egularity, irrationality or procedural impropriety inthe enquiry report. 6. It is well settled principle of law, as held in B.C. Qiatyrvedi vs. Union of India , State of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Kumar Sinssh and another, Umon of India vs. G.Ganayutham , Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and others4, V.Ramana vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others. State of Rajasthan and another vs. Mohd. Ayub Naz . Syndicate Bank and others vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in deeision makin| process not the decisioa. In the present case, there is no rationality, illegality or procedural irregularity, which require interference in the 1- (1995) 6 SCC 749 2- (1996) 1SCC 302 3- (1997) 7 SCC 463 4- (1999) 2 SCC 10 5- (2005) 7 SCC 338 6- (2006) 1 SCC 589 7- (2006) 3 SCC 150 ./(- finding of the enquiry officer and the decision of the disciplihary authority for imposition ofpunishment ofremoval from service. ipal •li ;. K.r.i 7. For the reasons above-stated, there is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded and order dated 6-5-1989 passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure A/4), order dated 20-9-1989 < passed by the Conservator ofForest (Annexure A/6) and order dated 10-4-1992 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted) (Annexure A/8). Thus, this petition isdismissed. No order as tocosts. Sd/- .Satish K. Agniliotn Judge ffiij B-Z