IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 917 OF 2003 Umrao Singh Patwal ……..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others ……..Respondents. Mr. T.S. Rautela, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 17.1.2001 whereby a punishment has been imposed on the petitioner by the Appointing Authority i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramnagar, Nainital whereby a fine of Rs. 28,300/- has to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner in 39 installments and his annual increments have been stopped for three years with non cumulative effect. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment and has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 17.1.2001. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who was a Forest Guard at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 1999 at Ramnagar Forest Division around 10 trees were illegally cut, from the forest areas/Beats which were assigned to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In the inquiry, which was conducted against the petitioner, it has come out that the trees from forest areas/Beats which were assigned to the petitioner were illegally cut and he had not only committed the gross irresponsibility but has also tried to cover up the illegal felling of trees. On the basis of the inquiry report which proceeded in accordance with law, punishment of a fine of Rs. 28,300/- to be deducted from the salary of the 2 petitioner in 39 installments and stoppage of three annual increments have been imposed on the petitioner. The punishments imposed on the petitioner are minor. There is no averment in the writ petition challenging any procedural lapses or violation of any principle of natural justice and fair play. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner, recovery which has to be made against the petitioner was only for a sum of Rs. 17,877/-, whereas in the impugned order recovery of Rs. 28,300 has been given. This increase has not been explained by the respondents. It is for this reason that initially vide an interim order dated 30.8.2003, this Court had stayed the recovery excess to Rs. 17,000/-. It is, therefore, directed that any amount excess to Rs. 17877/- shall not be recovered, from the petitioner. The other punishment which is stoppage of three annual increments is held to be proper and the challenge against it by the petitioner is dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.6.2010 Avneet