IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6498 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2010 Lal Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Rakesh Jawal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing the order dated 9.12.1999 (Annexure PE) imposing penalty of recovery of a sum of Rs.1,28,382/-. The petitioner was working as a Forest Guard in Kalpa Range with the department of Forests, Government of Himachal Pradesh. With regard to certain illicit felling department proceedings were initiated against number of government officials including the petitioner. Enquiry Officer Dr.V.R.R.Singh, (I.F.S.) in terms of his enquiry report held that no charge against the petitioner Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 stood proved since there was nothing found against him. Some of the officials who had been indicted by the enquiry Officer made separate representations but he did not make any representation to the State challenging the findings of the Enquiry officer. Memo dated 22.7.1993 written by the Conservator of Forests, Rampur to Principal, CCF, Himachal Pradesh, also evidences the fact that the petitioner was not guilty of any charge. This was the position taken by the Conservator of Forests, but, however, surprisingly in terms of order dated 9.12.1999, penalty of Rs.1,28,382/- stands imposed upon the petitioner. The said order in totality reads as under:- “Whereas S/Shri Krishan Lal Forest Ranger, Bega Nand Deputy Ranger, Lal Singh Forest Guard and Udey Singh forest guard of Nichar Forest Division were jointly chargesheeted by C.F. Rampur vide memo No.8.IX.a.67/5783 dated 7.7.89 for dereliction of duty and causing financial loss to the Govt. to the tune of Rs.2,58,817.98. Whereas Shri V.R.R.Singh IFS the then D.F.O Nichar was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide C.F. Rampur Office Order No.64/89 dated 15.9.89. And whereas the said Inquiry officer submitted his enquiry report to this office vide his memo. No.586/G dated 16.6.1993. The enquiry report was sent to Pr. CCF, H.P. vide C.F, Rampur memo No.8.IX.a.67/3988 dated 22.7.93 for imposing major penalty on all the delinquent officials except Sh. Udey Singh Forest Guard (Now D.R.) against whom the charge could not be proved. 3 S/Sh. Krishan Lal Negi, F>R. Bega Nand Deputy Ranger and Lal Singh Forest Guard were supplied with a copy of the enquiry report giving them the opportunity to make representation or submission, if any, vide Pr. CCF, H.P. memo No. Ft.14- 6/61(E.11) dated 15.7.94. On receipt of their representations the case was considered at govt. level and it was decided to drop charges and exonerate Shri Krishan Lal (Retd.) F.R. vide letter No. Fts (1) 6(16)-1/85-2 dated 9.1.97 from Joint Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of H.P. addressed to Pr. CCF, HP. As per letter No. Fts(1)8(16)-1/88-2 dated 18.9.99 from Dy. Secretary (Fts.) to the Govt. of H.P. addressed to the Pr. CCF, HP no direct charge has been proved/established against Sh. Krishan Lal Negi (Retd.) Forest Ranger and therefore the recoveries of the pecuniary loss attributed to his share is not justified, so the whole amount is recoverable from S/Shri Bega Nand Deputy Ranger and Lal Singh Forest Guard. Therefore, the recovery of pecuniary loss to the Govt. is ordered as bolow:- Name of delinquent Amount to be official recovered 1. Sh. Bega Nand D.R. Rs.1,28,382.00 4,417.15 Total = Rs.1,32,799.15 2. Sh. Lal Singh Fgd. Rs.1,28,382.00” Importantly even in the said order there is no finding with regard to the petitioner’s guilt/misconduct. Conservator of Forest has suddenly come to the conclusion that the recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The basis on which such 4 conclusion was arrived at by the officer is not evidenced from the order nor has any material made available to the Court. The charge against the delinquent officer was held to be not proved. Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned order, Annexure PE, is bad in law. The recovery could not have been effected from the petitioner without any basis or a positive finding that he was in fact responsible for having caused loss to the State exchequer. It is not a case of embezzlement of public funds entrusted to a government employee. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 9.12.1999 qua the petitioner is set aside. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 22nd April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.