SBCWP NO.4404/04. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4404/2004. Shyam Bihari Jangir Vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur & ors. Date of Order : September 23, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri K.R. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 7/7/2003 whereby a sum of Rs.47,430/- has been recovered from the petitioner and the order dated 24/5/2004 whereby his appeal has been dismissed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Operation Division) Udaipur. 3) Shri K.R. Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has argued tht petitioner was compelled to take the charge from his predecessor Rooplal Meena by his superiors even though the stock was not weighed. Learned counsel in this connection invited attention of the court towards copy of stock register Ann.10 which indicates that charge was taken by him without weighment of the stock and that the outgoing Foreman Rooplal Meena handed over the charge with the remark that if there would be any shortage, he would be responsible for the same. Even though in the appeal filed by the petitioner, Deputy Conservator of Forest SBCWP NO.4404/04. 2 originally directed for staying recovery and directed fresh enquiry but appeal was dismissed vide order dated 13/8/2003. 4) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner was responsible in taking the charge without weighment of the stock and that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal as there was no force in the arguments raised. 5) A perusal of the order Annexure-13 dated 24/5/2004 indicates that appellate authority merely referred to its earlier order dated 13/8/2003 by which recovery was stayed and enquiry was directed and then proceeded to dismiss the appeal. No reason whatsoever was assigned why arguments raised were not accepted. The order also does not indicate as to what happened to the enquiry directed by him. It also does not indicate as to in what manner enquiry report, if any, submitted by the enquiry officer was considered by the appellate authority. Order thus suffers from total non application of mind. 6) I therefore while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24/5/2004, remit the matter back to him to decide it afresh after taking into consideration the enquiry report and the stock register and argument raised by the petitioner before this court. The writ petition is allowed in part accordingly. anil (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.