W a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Writ Petition (S) No. 1415 0f 2006 PETITIONER Devi Prasad Tiwari, aged about 59 years, S/o Durga Prasad, Sfa Shri Durga Prasad Tiwari Rio Chikhli Distt Raigarh (CG) Designation : Forest Guard Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, P.O. 8: Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Conservator of Forest, Biiaspur Circle, P.O. & Distt. Bitaspur (Chhattisgarh) Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh Forest Division, P.O. & Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 4. Forest Ranger (Parkshtra Adhikari) Raigarh Forest Division, P.O. & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Mr. Uttam Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the. State/respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF iNDiA ORDER (31 .072009) e: The petitioner in the instant petition chalienges the legaiity and validity of the order dated 18.3.2002 (Annexure P—1) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer; Raigarh Forest Division by which the recovery of Rs.76,923/- has been ordered to be made from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by Forest Conservator, Biiaspur by which theappeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 18.3.2002 has been rejected and the order dated 18.3.2002 has been affirmed. Q? The facts of the cas& in brief are that the petitioner who is working on the post of Forest Guard was at the relevant time incharge of two forest depots i.e. Chikhli and Pussaur of Raigarh District. On a physical verification of the Pussaur Depot conducted on 4.12.1999 by thearea officer, shortage of 668.90 quintals of fire wood was noticed. However,‘ according to the petitioner the 'Area Officer has no authority to conduct the physical verification the Divisional Forest Officer by order dated 18.3.2002 directed for recovery of Rs.76,923 in monthly installment from the salary of the petitioner. The appeal preferred against the said order was rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer. Hence, this petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of recovery has been passed without conducting any preliminary enquiry; therefore the same is not sustainabie in the law. He further submits that on being asked by the petitioner for the photocopies of the physical verification and other reievant papers, the same have not been made available to him. He further submits that non supply of report of physical verification amounts to denial of natural justice. and therefore for the shortage of fire wood against the petitioner he alone cannot be held responsible. As it is admitted position that at the relevant time, the petitioner was having charge of two depots situated within circle of 10 kms. Learned counsel for the petitioner}, at this stage, submits that in an identical petition being writ petition No. 2547/2004 this Court has passed the order dated 8‘“ September, 2009 and the case of the petitioner also stands on the same footing. Thus he submitsthat in this petition, the petitioners are also entitled for the same relief. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/State supports the order impugned. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that as this Court in an identical matter being W.P. No. 2547/2004 has already passed a detailed order, this Court is of the opinion that similar relief can be granted in this case also. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed and the orders dated 18.3.2002 (Annexure P-1) and 10.8.2005 (Annexure P—2) are hereby quashed. Petitioner would be entitled for all the 3 @ ¥ consequential benefits. However, the/respondents authorities are free to proceed with the enquiry after giving show cause notice to the petitioner and suppiying all the requisite documents as are required by him and then pass an order in accordance with law. Sdl- ' Pritinker Diwaker Judge