- (1.) Special leave granted. Delay condoned.
(2.) Appellant joined service as a Forest Guard in erstwhile State of Punjab and when the State of Himachal Pradesh was formed, his service stood transferred effective from November 1, 1966 to Himachal Pradesh. At the relevant time, he was serving as Forest Guard in Kulu Forest Division. It appears that one Kali Dass of village Kharka has land of his private ownership within the area covered by the beat of the appellant. Somewhere in the early part of 1973, Kali Dass cut and felled 21 spruce trees in Tarapur III, Forest of lower Kulu range. It was alleged that the appellant as Forest Guard and one Duni Chand, Block Officer failed to exercise necessary supervision with a view to preventing illicit felling of spruce trees. However. as soon as misdemeanour of Kali Dass came to light, an enquiry was held. In this enquiry, Kali Dass contended that he had cut and felled spruce trees standing on the land of his private ownership and he cannot be accused of any illicit felling of spruce trees from the forest area. This contention necessitated a measurement of the land claimed by Kali Dass to be of his private ownership and it is only after physical measurement and specific demarcation of boundary. It could be ascertained that of the 21 trees cut and felled, 17 were in forest land and 4 were in the land of private ownership of Kali Dass. Kali Das after measurement and demarcation conceded, as per his statement Annexure 1, that he bona fide believed that all the 21 trees were standing in his private land and now that on physical measurement and demarcation of boundary, it transpired that of the 21 trees, 17 were standing in the forest land, he could not have cut the same without the necessary permission. He further contended that there was an honest error about the boundary line dividing his private land with the forest land and therefore, he felled the trees. He proceeded to state that he confessed that 17 trees felled by him stood in the Government Forest land and he was bound to pay the compensation for the same and it is an admitted position that he in fact paid Rs. 3,136.66 p. to the Forest Department as and by way of compensation.
(3.) Thereafter, a joint disciplinary enquiry was initiated against appellant, the Forest Guard and Duni Chand, Block Officer. It would be advantageous to reproduce the charges framed against the appellant and Duni Chand. Following charges were framed against Duni Chand : (1) Illicit felling in Tarapur III thereby causing loss to Government. (2) Negligence in the performance of Government duty. (3) Doubtful honesty. The charges framed against the present appellant were as under: (1) Illicit felling in Tarapur III due to negligence of the F. G. thus causing loss to Government property. (2) Negligence in performance of Government duty. (3) Doubtful honesty. A joint enquiry proceeded against both the delinquents up to the point of recording evidence of witnesses; (1) Sh. Thampi Ram (2) Sh. Khub Ram (3) Sh. Amar Chand (4) Sh. Kali Dass and (5) Sh. N. D. Ralli, Inquiry having proceeded to that stage, the Presenting Officer applied for and obtained an Order separating the inquiry and thereafter proceeded to examine co-delinquent Duni Chand as a witness against the present appellant. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted a joint report both against Duni Chand and the present appellant. The Inquiry Officer held that charges Nos. 1 and 2 against Duni Chandand the present appellant were proved, bur the third charge of doubtful honesty against both has not been proved. On receipt of the report, the Disciplinary Authority, Arnyapal, Kulu proceeded to accept the report in respect of charges Nos. 1 and 2 and provisionally decided to impose the penalty of removal from service and served a notice under Art. 311 (2) on April 5, 1977 calling upon the appellant to show cause why the provisional penalty decided upon by him should not be confirmed. The appellant submitted his written explanation. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the same, confirmed the penalty of removal from service. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Chief Conservator of Forest without success. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision petition to the Forest Minister, but before he received any reply as to how his revision petition was dealt with, he moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.;