HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.205 of 2007 (S/B) (Old No. 523/1995) 1. The Divisional Forest Officer Tehri Forest Division, Tehri Tehri Garhwal 2. The Conservator of Forest Bhagirathi Circle, Muni Ki Reti, Tehri Garhwal …petitioners Versus 1. Sri Alel Singh Sajwan S/o Sri Prem Singh Sajwan Posted as Forest Guard Alak Nandan Range Chirbiliya District Tehri Garhwal 2. The State Public Services Tribunal U.P., Indira Bhawan, Lucknow … Respondents Dated :- 11th February, 2008 Mr. Khilpati Upadhyaya, Adl. Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N. S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Per:- Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs :- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.1994 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.338/F/II/1990 – Alel Singh Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Forest Division, Tehri and another, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition. (ii) Issue any such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Alel Singh Sajwan- respondent no.1 has file a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow against the punishment order dated 16.12.1985 and dismissal order dated 04.11.1989. It was alleged in the claim petition that the respondent no.1 was posted as Forest Guard/Beat In- charge in Pilkhi Beat (Pokhal Range) under the Divisional Forest, Tehri Forest Division, Tehri. The respondent no.1 was suspended on 28th May 1984 (Annexure-1 to the claim petition) and a chargesheet was issued against him on 17.07.1984 (Annexure-2 to the claim petition) that during his tenure as Forest Guard the illicit felling of trees took place in his Beat and he did not prevent it and as such he was found negligent in discharging his official duties. He was further charged that in order to conceal the illicit felling to trees he set fire in the forest and the respondent no.1 did not make any attempt to prevent the illicit felling and theft of trees. He did not take any action against the persons who were responsible for the illicit felling and theft of the trees and he did not report the matter to the higher authorities. The respondent no.1 submitted his reply against the chargesheet to the inquiry officer and also demanded certain papers from the inquiry officer referred in the chargesheet. The respondent no.1 has averred in his claim petition that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was further averred that the order of the punishment did not contain any findings of being guilty of the charges leveled against him and as such the punishment order is liable to be set aside. The writ petitioners contested the claim petition before the Tribunal and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer has not given adequate opportunity to the respondent no.1 to defend himself and he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the punishment order of respondent no.1 was a non-speaking order. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the respondent no.1 and quashed the punishment order dated 16.12.1985 and the appellate order dated 04.11.1989. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of learned Tribunal, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners-department. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. Khilpati Upadhyaya learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent no.1 was not provided ample opportunity to defend his case; the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are wholly illegal and bad in law; the learned Tribunal further erred in holding that the punishment order was a non-speaking order; and the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without discussing the material available on record; and there was sufficient material before the Inquiry Officer as well as before the Disciplinary Authority to pass the punishment order against the respondent no.1. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1. refuted the contention and contended that after submission of the reply of the chargesheet no enquiry was held by the enquiry officer in accordance with law; no date, time and place for the inquiry was ever fixed; no witnesses were cross examined in presence of the respondent no.1; the respondent no.1 was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses; the impugned order of punishment was non-speaking, bald and against the law; and the order was passed with pre- determined mind. 7. It is true that the enquiry officer recorded the evidence of the witnesses and the copies thereof have been filed alongwith the writ petition. It clearly reveals that no opportunity of cross examination has been given to the respondent no.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate us that any opportunity to cross-examine the witness was provided to the respondent no.1. The writ petition did not contain any averment that the opportunity was given to the respondent no.1 to cross examine the witnesses and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are factually wrong. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the proper opportunity was not given to the respondent no.1 during the course of the inquiry. 8. It is also evident from the record that the respondent no.1 was the ‘Beat Incharge’ in Pilkhi Beat in which the illicit felling of tress took place during his tenure and he was charged for being negligent in discharge of his duties. He was further charged that he set fire in the Forest Beat so as to conceal the illicit felling of trees. The Inquiry Officer after holding the inquiry found the respondent no.1 guilty for the charges leveled against him. Perusal of the punishment order reveals that it is a non-speaking and bald order. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the punishment order was non-speaking and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the punishment order was bad in law. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) Dated 11.02.2008 LSR