IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 4151 of 2002 Subhash Chaubey, S/o Late Shiv Kumar Chaubey, resident of Village- Keshopur, P.S. – Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. ………Petitioner Versus 1. Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., 13, Patliputra Colony, Patna -13. 2. General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Circle, Patna, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Patna. 3. Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Division, Gaya, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Patna. 4. Sri Rakesh Kumar, the then Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division, Gaya, at present posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Banka. ……Respondents. ------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Satist Chandra Jha-3 For the Respondent B.S.F.D.C. : Mr. J.P. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. K. Shukla, Advocate ----------- 7. 22.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 dated 24.01.2002 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing 2 Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., the petitioner has been dismissed from service pursuant to disciplinary proceeding in which detailed inquiry was held in which the petitioner participated. There was also punishment for recovery of Rs. 3,000,00/- (Three Lacs) allegedly defalcated by the petitioner. He is not to be paid any further salary beyond the Subsistence Allowance for the period of suspension. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted that by Annexure-6 series i.e. letters dated 12.05.1998, 15.08.1998 and 15.09.1998 he asked for certain documents but the respondents did not bother even to reply and hence he was prejudiced in his defence in course of inquiry. It was next submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director, and hence petitioner was deprived of any appellate forum in the Corporation. 3 On behalf of respondent-Corporation and its officials it was submitted that in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit it has been clearly stated that pursuant to demand for documents, the petitioner was permitted by the Inquiry Officer to inspect those documents, which were available with the Inquiry Officer and a reply with respect to said demand was given to the petitioner through Letter No. 987 dated 15.09.2008, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure- C. It is submitted that the order-sheet of the Inquiry Officer dated 15.09.2008 and Annexure-C of the same date shows that satisfactory action was taken in respect of petitioner’s demand for documents and after 15.09.1998 till the submission of the inquiry report on 15.03.1999 admittedly petitioner claimed no further demand for any further documents. In respect of forum for appeal, it was submitted that the inquiry in this case was 4 conducted by the General Manager and he found the charges to be proved and thereafter the order of punishment was passed by Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation. It was further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director should have been challenged before the next higher authority of the Corporation which is the Board of Directors. On behalf of petitioner reliance was placed upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Others Vs. A. Venkata Raidu [(2007) 1 SCC 338] in support of proposition that as per settled principles of natural justice, if any material is sought to be used in an inquiry, then copies of the material should be supplied to the concerned employee, the proceedee. In that case on facts and for other reasons, the High Court outright found the charges not proved that was affirmed by the 5 Apex Court. On behalf of respondents reliance was placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others [(1999) 1 SCC 741] in support of proposition that the rules of natural justice would depend upon the circumstances in each case. It was submitted that the inquiry was held fairly and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions and the reply, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition. After the order was dictated learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now when the position is clear that petitioner can prefer an appeal before the Board of Directors, he intends to prefer an appeal before the said Body and hence the Writ Petition may be 6 permitted to be withdrawn. Since this Court has not gone into the merits of the case in detail, if the petitioner is advised, he may approach the appellate authority which shall be at liberty to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)