RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA-II,JJ. - (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, counsel for respondents.
(2.) This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and ill advised and without looking into the patent illegality in the manner and procedure in which proceedings have been conducted by disciplinary authority in the matter and to have a corrective approach thereon, only to continue with litigation, may be for some reason other than bona fide, this writ petition appears to have been filed.
(3.) Record shows that a charge sheet was issued to claimant respondent on 28.06.2004 stating that as per report given by certain Forest officers, plantation has failed in several areas which resulted in loss to Government. The failure of plantation therefore has been treated to be a lack of proper discharge of duty on the part of claimant respondent resulting in loss to Government. The entire charge is only to this extent that claimant respondent did not discharge his duties properly which has resulted in failure of plantation. Enquiry officer found that charge sheet itself has been prepared in a very irresponsible manner inasmuch as for the purpose of success or failure of plantation how an individual officer can be held to be responsible and to which extent. Nothing has been considered by authorities concerned before issuing charge sheet. He held that no charge levelled against claimant respondent is proved.;