- (1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.02.2009 except item Nos. 3 and 5 of the concluding part of the order passed by respondent No. 4 and for payment of arrears of salary alongwith interest and for refund of the amount which has been allegedly illegally deducted from the petitioner's salary.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was posted as Beat Incharge w.e.f. 09.05.1995 at Rehra Range, Itwa Beat and had requested for leave for his treatment to Range Officer, Forest who orally allowed him to proceed on leave. Thereafter, he remained on leave from 31.10.1997 to 06.11.1997 and reported for duty on 07.11.1997 with medical fitness certificate. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.11.1997 in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. In January, 2008, the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Balrampur was appointed inquiry officer. The chargesheet was issued on 29.01.1998 and was served upon the petitioner on 06.02.1998. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was that in the combing 127 trees of 'sagon' (teak) and 83 trees of 'sakhu' totaling 210 were found illegally cut, valued at about Rs. 1,71,672/-. The second charge was regarding unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 31.10.1997 to 06.11.1997 and the third charge was that gurdling of 103 trees was carried out while petitioner was posted causing financial loss to the State exchequer. The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report holding the petitioner guilty. The disciplinary authority (punishing authority) vide order dated 02.05.1998 ordered dismissal from service and for recovery of the amount equal to financial loss caused from the petitioner. The petitioner challenging the report of the inquiry officer and also procedure adopted for the inquiry preferred Writ Petition No. 3375 (SS) of 1998. This Court vide its order dated 02.05.1998 quashed the order of punishment but provided liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the order expeditiously. Payment of arrears and other consequential benefits were kept subject to the final outcome of the fresh inquiry, if any. The order dated 02.07.2008 passed in the above writ petition is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of dismissal dated 2.5.1998 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was discharging duty as Van Rakshak. Later on he was designated as Forester and was posted at Rehra Range, Itwa Beet .While posted at Rehra range, he was charged that he had facilitated in cutting of 210 trees. A charge sheet dated 29.1.1998 was served on the petitioner in response to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The Enquiry Officer without holding further enquiry submitted a report before the disciplinary authority, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 31.3.1998 to which the petitioner also submitted his reply. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has neither recorded any oral evidence nor provided any opportunity to lead evidence in defence. It is also submitted that neither any date nor time or place was fixed to proceed with the enquiry nor the petitioner was personally heard. The impugned order of dismissal has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various judgments reported in Avadhesh Kumar Rastogi vs. State of U.P. and others,2004 22 LCD 1 Narendra Veer Singh vs. Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Zila Parishad, Etah and others, 2000 18 LCD 906 and Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 23 LCD 859 and proceeded to submit that since the Enquiry Officer straightaway submitted his report after receipt of the reply to charge sheet it suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner himself has not adduced any evidence. There is no illegality in the order. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is settled proposition of law that regular enquiry means recording of oral evidence with opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. It is also very well settled proposition of law that opportunity of personal hearing should be afforded to the delinquent employee by the Enquiry Officer. In the present case, from plain reading of the impugned order of dismissal, it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report merely after receipt of the reply to the charge sheet. There appears to be violation of principles of natural justice. During course of argument it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances as he was neither Incharge nor he was conferred with power to look after the trees in question. In any view of the matter the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the occurrence which has been happened resulting in dismissal from service. In case, some other officers or authorities are involved then the Enquiry Officer shall look into the matter and record a finding and, if necessary, may recommend to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to take appropriate action. It shall be open to the petitioner to take defence in this respect. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the impugned order has been passed relying upon the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which suffers from violation of principles of natural justice hence vitiates. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.5.1998 passed by the opposite party no.4 contained in Annexure No.1 is quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to hold afresh enquiry in accordance to law keeping in view the observations made herein above expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The payment of arrears and other consequential benefits shall be subject to final outcome of the fresh enquiry, if any.
(3.) The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.";