CWP No.17111 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 22.01.2010 Chatur Bhuj ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.K.S.Banyana, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner while working as Forest Guard was served with a charge-sheet dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure P-1). The charge against the petitioner was disobedience to the order and negligence. The Enquiry CWP No.17111 of 2008 2 Officer was appointed to hold enquiry in respect of the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges for which the Enquiry was initiated. However, the petitioner has been held guilty of shortage of trees. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, a show- cause notice dated 25.3.2006 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. On consideration of the reply, the Divisional Forest Officer has passed the impugned order dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure P-4) and following punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner:- (1)Penalty of recovery of Rs.30950/- has been imposed upon him for alleged loss of the trees, as per the details given in the impugned order. (2)Stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect; (3)Recordable warning for not repeating such mistake in future; and (4)Annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 has been down-graded. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Forest Conservator. The Appellate Authority has set aside one of the punishments i.e. stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect and other three punishments have been retained, vide order dated 8.11.2006 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner preferred further appeal before the Chief Forest Conservator. The CWP No.17111 of 2008 3 said authority vide its order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) waived off the quantum of compensation of Rs.3850/-, however, recovery of cost of Rs.27100/- has been maintained and his suspension period of 153 days has been treated as earned leave. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders before this Court. Apart from the ground that the punishment has been imposed in disciplinary proceedings without framing any charge-sheet in respect of the allegations and holding an enquiry in this regard, it is also contended that the enquiry report and the charge-sheet were never furnished to the petitioner before issuing show-cause and imposing punishment. Though in the reply filed, the State-respondents have tried to justify the award of punishments, however, there is not even a whisper about the non-issuance of the enquiry report/charge-sheet in respect of the allegations for which the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty. From the charge-sheet and the report of the Enquiry Officer, it is apparent that the petitioner was never served with any charge-sheet or statement of imputations or allegations in respect of the shortage of the trees. The Enquiry Officer has returned findings against the petitioner for shortage of trees, without there being any basis. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not been supplied with the enquiry report. Neither the findings of the Enquiry Officer CWP No.17111 of 2008 4 nor the consequential orders imposing the penalty upon the petitioner are sustainable in law. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-2), dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure P-4), dated 8.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) and dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed. It is, however, observed that the respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in respect of the alleged shortage of trees, if so desired. In view of the quashment of the penalty imposed against the petitioner, any recovery made from the petitioner be refunded. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.01.2010 MFK