CWP No.2909 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2909 of 2001 Date of decision : 10-08-2010 Shri Gurdev Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate, and Mr. Pardeep Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that respondents be directed to release the amount of gratuity and leave encashment along with 18% interest. It is further prayed that impugned order dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure P-6) whereby it was ordered that the amount of Rs.48030/- is liable to be recovered from the petitioner, be set aside as the Punishing Authority, while relying upon the enquiry report, which was vague, held the petitioner guilty before holding of the enquiry. It is further prayed that order dated 25.10.2000 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Appellate Authority whereby order (Annexure P-6) passed by Punishing Authority has been upheld be also quashed. Before the prayer made by the petitioner is answered, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case. Petitioner joined Forest Department as Forest Guard on CWP No.2909 of 2001 -2- 21.01.1965 and retired as such on 30.09.1999. In the year 1993, petitioner was transferred to Ahmedgarh beat from Malerkotla. Case of the petitioner is that on 7.7.1997, he handed over the charge to Ram Dhan, Forest Guard and at that time there was no shortage of the trees. Subsequently, in October 1997, a list was prepared which depicted shortage of 459 trees and in an enquiry the petitioner was held guilty of causing loss of 254 trees for which recovery of Rs.48,030/- was ordered against the petitioner. State has filed written statement in which it has been stated that on transfer of the petitioner, he had not handed over the charge of Malerkotla beat to his successor Ram Dhan, Forest Guard inspite of the order of Range Officer, Malerkotla dated 23.09.1997. Since petitioner was not coming forward to give the charge, Ram Dhan Forest Guard assumed charge and reported the shortage of trees. It is further stated that transfer of charge between two Forest Guards is not possible on the same day of transfer orders, because thousands of trees stand spread over area of tens of kilometers and therefore it requires a lot of energy and time to tally the trees with the enumeration record. I have heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate has submitted that the enquiry report (Annexure P-2) is vague. A perusal of the evidence discussed by the Enquiry Officer reveals that various attempts were made by the authorities to persuade the petitioner to handover the charge. Despite notice, petitioner had not come forward to sign the list of trees prepared. Accordingly, report of Ram Dhan CWP No.2909 of 2001 -3- regarding shortage of trees prepared in October 1997 was accepted. The Enquiry Officer has given a finding that Hardev Singh, Forestor and Ram Dhan, Forest Guard were conniving with the petitioner to absolve him of the charges. They were acting hand in glove with each other. I have read the vernacular of the enquiry report as there was an apprehension that any error may not have crept in translation. The report states that earlier also Gurdev Singh, Forest Guard (petitioner) and Ram Dhan in connivance made an attempt to mislead the Department when the later facts came into light, it was found that false reports were submitted. Therefore, in the month of August 1997, when Ram Dhan took over the charge, had he then reported the matter to the Forest Range Officer the action could have been taken. Thus, it was concluded that connivance of Gurdev Singh, Forest Guard with Ram Dhan, Forest Guard is made out and charges against Forest Guard, Gurdev Singh accused – petitioner are proved. Counsel has further referred to Annexure P-2 to state that when the charge-sheet was served it was specifically stated therein that the charges have been proved thus the whole issue was prejudged. To allay such apprehension and inference, I have again perused the vernacular Annexure P-1. The true translation of Annexure P-1 will be that the charges appear to have been proved. Thus a prima facie view was formulated calling upon the delinquent to explain his conduct. Thus it cannot be said that before serving the charge-sheet, guilt of the petitoner was concluded. Therefore, judgment relied upon by the counsel is not applicable to the facts of CWP No.2909 of 2001 -4- the present case. Counsel has placed reliance upon Hans Raj Gupta versus State of Punjab and others, 1992(1) Recent Services Judgments, 462 to say that where it was stated in the charge-sheet that the charge has been proved then the enquiry will be nothing but a farce, as it will amount to prejudging the charge. As stated earlier, the argument advanced by the counsel is not borne from the record. The concluding line of first charge-sheet as stated earlier when translated will read as under:- "Unauthorisedly cutting of trees in connivance with others resulted into loss to the State Revenue due to which charge No.1 appears to be correct." The word "appears to be correct" and "has been proved" have two different connotations. What is to be understood by common prudent man is to be considered by the Court. Thus, on the basis of the enquiry report, the Punishing Authority passed a well- reasoned order to impose punishment of recovery of Rs.48030/-. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Punishing Authority. There is no patent illegality or infirmity in the order passed by two authorities. The Writ Court will not tread on the path of re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence. Thus, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and the present writ petition is dismissed in view of the aforesaid observations. However, there will be no order as to costs. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 10-08-2010 JUDGE manju