HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5414 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2011 **** Gurdev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate Amicus curiae Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined the Forest Department, Punjab as a Forest Guard on 18.11.1965 and he was promoted as Forester on 2nd June, 1984. The petitioner was thereafter subjected to disciplinary action on the allegation of causing loss to the State Exchequer and was ordered to be reverted as Forest Guard from the post of Forester vide an order dated 15.01.1992 (Annexure P4). (2). The petitioner statedly filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed. He thereafter is claimed to have filed a review petition in which the State Government purportedly issued letter No. 17/7/92Ft-2/932 dated 29.2.1996 staying the punishment of reversion awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as CWP No.5414 of 2005.doc - 2 - Deputy Forest Ranger on 13.7.2000 (Annexure P2) and he continued to work as such till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.2004. The delay in the release of pension and other retiral dues has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. (3). The controversy raked up by the respondents is somewhat interesting. It is their positive case in the reply/affidavit that the so-called Government letter dated 29.2.1996 whereby reversion of the petitioner was allegedly ‘stayed’ was never issued by the State Government and the same is a fabricated document. It is explained that since there was an entry regarding ‘reversion’ in the service record of the petitioner that the Accountant General raised certain queries which were to be responded for finalization of the pension case of the petitioner and it was revealed in this process that no ‘stay order’ was ever passed by the State Government. (4). The allegation of forging a ‘Government order’ and taking undue advantage thereof to wriggle out the punishment already awarded and/or to seek further promotion indeed are of very serious nature. Assuming these allegations to be ex facie true, it appears that the fraudulent letter could not have seen the light of the day without active connivance of the officials of the respondent-Department. What were the senior officers kept on doing for all these CWP No.5414 of 2005.doc - 3 - years when not only the petitioner continued to draw the salary as a Forester but earned further promotion as Deputy Forest Ranger is also a mystery. The reply filed by the respondents including the affidavit of the Head of the Forest & Wildlife Department are totally silent as to what action has been taken against the mandarins of the Indian Forest Service under whose administrative control the petitioner continued to hoodwink the process of law till his retirement. The petitioner’s success behind ‘forging’ the letter is a proven exhibit of the gross negligence of the Officers and/or their tacit connivance with the petitioner. (5). In these circumstance and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner stood retired from service about 7 years back and the last post held by him was of Deputy Forest Ranger, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to release the pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by him on the said post. (6). Nevertheless, it is directed that if any case has already been registered against the petitioner as stated in the reply/affidavit, the law shall take its own course. The authorities however cannot be permitted to shift the entire blame on the petitioner at this stage. The Officers of the Department were equally responsible. The enquiry/investigation or any other proceedings shall CWP No.5414 of 2005.doc - 4 - therefore be equally directed to determine the responsibility of the Departmental Officers responsible for creating this mess. In case the petitioner is found guilty, the competent authority shall be at liberty to impose an appropriate punishment under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in accordance with law. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge