Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 5.4.2003 passed by the State Government (Annexure-12 of the writ petition) purporting it to be under Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, whereby the petitioner was reverted back from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest to the post of Forest Ranger which was his original post, in initial pay scale of that post and a recovery of Rs. 3,55,321/- sought to be made from him, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was selected by U.P. Public Service Commission and initially appointed on the post of Forest Ranger in the year 1980. In due course of time in the year 1997 he was promoted on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest) and joined at Ranikhet on 21.8.97. Since then he was holding the aforesaid post in the State Forest Service Cadre. The petitioner took the charge of Janseth Range of Social Forestry Division, Muzaffarnagar under the Meerut Circle on 22.6.1994 and was Incharge of the Range upto 8.8.1996 and between 11.1096 to 21.8.97 Shri S. Chandola was the Conservator of Forest of Meerut Circle between 12.8.95 to 21.8.97. When the petitioner took charge of Janseth Range, tile Nursery wise position on 30.6.94 was that there were 10 nurseries located at various place in Janseth Tehsil, which were directly under the supervision of 9 Foresters (Section Officers), 10 Beat Officers (Forest Guards) and 10 permanent Malis. The duties of these subordinates' staff are specifically defined as per working plan. While posted and working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest at. Janseth and Morana Range the petitioner received a letter /notice dated 29.9.97 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffarnagar calling his explanation with regard to the Audit objection raised in connection of loss caused to the Government in the tune of Rs. 5,01,830.76 due to damage of 272739 plants during the period between 30.9.1993 to 30.6.1996 in the nurseries which were within the range of the petitioner. In response to the aforesaid letter the petitioner wrote a letter on 3.11.97 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffarnagar requesting him to furnish nursery-wise information of each nursery between the disputed period 30.9.93 to 30.9.96 so as to enable him to furnish any explanation in the matter but the same was never made available to him.
(3.) On 13.6.98 a charge sheet dated 8.5.98 vide covering letter of 29.5.1998 was served upon the petitioner by Conservator of Forest Meerut Division who has been appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner under the order of State Government dated 8.5.1998. According to the petitioner the materials in support of the charge sheet purported to be enclosed along with it were not in fact enclosed with it, therefore, it was found difficult for the petitioner to submit appropriate reply of the charge sheet as such vide his letter dated 14.6.98 the petitioner intimated Inquiry Officer that without any record asked for in response to the letter of Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffarnagar dated 29.9.97 and enclosures of the charge memo if was not possible for him to reply to the charge sheet in detail. However, some how he replied the charge sheet in general denying the allegations having caused any loss to the government vide part A of his reply. It was stated that entire charge sheet was based on matrix report which is prepared from the extract of monthly plants enumeration Register (Masik Paudh Gadna Panjika), plants distribution register (Paudh Vitran Panjika) and Nursery Register (Paudhshala Panjika) maintained for nursery separately by Section Officers. These Registers are up dated every month and matrix report for the range are prepared from these register quarterly i.e. on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 30th December every year at the range level and forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer who compiles it and reports at Divisional level and forward it to the Conservator of Forest. Thus it was essential to have these nursery wise information to furnish full and adequate reply to the charge sheet. By the aforesaid reply dated 14.6.98 the petitioner has further submitted that he has taken over the charge of Janseth range on 22.6.94, thus could not have been held responsible on the matrix data of 30.9.93 rather matrix data of 30.6.94 was relevant for working out the actual number of dead plants. The charge memo did not disclose any negligence amounting to misconducts on the part of the petitioner except general and vague allegations of shortage of specified number of plants, which could not justify initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner alone. There is a single charge against the petitioner that he failed to achieve the highest standard of integrity and devotion in performing his duties, which has resulted in shortage of plants and consequent loss to the government. Having failed to achieve the highest standard of integrity and devotion in performance of duties cannot be termed as misconduct justifying any penalty. Annual mortality rate in plants from 15 to 20% is uniformally accepted rate of plants grown and preserved in nurseries as per departmental circulars, norms and guidelines. The alleged shortage of plants during the petitioner's tenure were within the mortality rate of 15% cannot be treated to have caused any loss to the government as alleged loss of plants was shown to be within acceptable mortality rate with the result that no loss could be said to be suffered by the Government. The copies of the relevant document regarding mortality rate showing that shortage was within acceptable range has been filed as Annexure 5 of the writ petition.;