- (1.) THE petitioner, a Member of Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service was subjected to a disciplinary action as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter) under a memorandum dated 17.12.1996. He was charged for causing loss to the State Government for an amount of Rs.93,626.00 due to his failure in conserving soil in forest area. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner, but the disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to have a regular enquiry in the matter, accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 30.1.2008. The enquiry officer after considering the material available on record arrived at the conclusion that no need was there to subject the delinquent- petitioner for a disciplinary action under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and he was found not guilty for the allegation levelled.
(2.) THE disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the findings arrived by the enquiry officer, thus, under a communication dated 28.8.2003 he convened a note of disagreement to the petitioner and sought his explanation within a period of 15 days. A copy of the enquiry officer was also supplied to him. The disciplinary authority also sought comments from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the matter. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation explaining all the circumstances and also that all necessary efforts were made by him to conserve the forest soil and to stop its erosion. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur under letter dated 21.4.2005 convened his version to the disciplinary authority with a definite opinion that the disagreement made by the disciplinary authority does not appear to be a proper one. Necessary details given by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest under the letter dated 1.4.2005 reads as under:- ...[vernaculam text ommited]...... The disciplinary authority after availing petitioner's explanation and also the comments from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest held the petitioner guilty for the charge framed and imposed penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. While discussing the charge levelled against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority stated that the petitioner was not monitoring the work of forest soil erosion. If he was in need of any help to discharge his duty effectively, he should have informed to his higher officers. The total discussion made by the disciplinary authority and the finding given against the petitioner under the order dated 7.7.2009 reads as under :- ...[vernaculam text ommited]...... Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred a review petition as per provisions of Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 before His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan but that too came to be rejected on 17.6.2011, hence, this petition for writ is preferred.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry officer after examining the entire evidence available on record arrived at a definite conclusion that no need was there to subject the petitioner for a disciplinary action under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and further he was not at all guilty for the charge levelled, but the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with such finding, therefore, he sought explanation from the petitioner and comments from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The petitioner tendered his explanation and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest made a detailed note clarifying all the facts and events with an opinion that necessary efforts were made by the petitioner to stop erosion of forest land on knowing about the erosion. The disciplinary authority without examining the explanation given by the petitioner and comments made by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest held the petitioner guilty and imposed a major penalty. The order impugned as per learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, is not founded on valid reasons and is also contrary to the facts.;