N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS is the petitioner 'ssecond writ application in the same matter. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the resolution No. 106, dated 7.10.2003 whereby it has been held that the State was put to the lose of a sum of Rs. 1,88,153/ - by not removing the forest produce from the coups and the petitioner and two others have been held guilty of causing the said loss and the petitioner has been given two fold punishment : - -(i) deduction of 10% of the pension amount; (ii) recovery of 50% of the amount of Rs. 1,88,153/ - from his retrial dues.
(2.) THE petitioner retired on 31.1.2000 as Forest Range Officer on attaining the age of superannuation from State Trading Division, Garhwa, While the petitioner was in service, he was served with a memo of charge dated 19.6.1997 whereby it was, inter alia, alleged that while he was posted as Range Officer, Serikella, Logging Range, Kandra, the Government suffered a loss of Rs. 1,88,153/ - for the fault of the petitioner for not removing the logs from the coups. Equivalent Citation:2005 -JCR -3 -141 The petitioner in his reply had denied the charges and stated, inter alia, that it was none of his faults, but because of the geographical condition and the difficult terrain, it was not possible to remove all the woods/goods from the coups. He had duly informed the higher authorities about the said condition immediately. It was also stated that there were seven Foresters and eleven Munshis working and were in the charge of the eleven coups while the petitioner was in charge of only two coups. Stand of the petitioner is that he had directed all the Foresters to extract all the woods, but the same could not be possible for the reasons aforesaid. After the inquiry, the petitioner was held guilty of causing the loss and by order dated 24.5.2001, the petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding of 10% of the pension amount and for recovery of Rs. 1,88,153/ - from his retrial dues. The petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P. (S) No. 3465 of 2001 on the ground that there was no due inquiry, in accordance with law and the findings were not based on any evidence and there was violation of the principles of natural justice in holding the said inquiry. This Court, after due consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, had held that the inquiry report was not based on evidence and only, the submissions of the presenting officer were relied upon without any basis. The order of punishment was thus quashed and liberty was given to the respondents, to proceed and pass order in accordance with law, within a period of six months. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure 6, thereupon has been passed which has been challenged in this writ application. By the said Annexure 6, this time, three person, including the petitioner, have been held guilty of causing the said loss and liability has been apportioned. Now 50% of the said amount of Rs. 1,88,153/ - has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner and the balance 50% from two foresters - -Raghubar Mishra and Nand Deo Ram, It has been stated that the same errors have been repeated and again without any legal basis and material on record an illegal order has been passed. It has been contended that by this impugned order, although there was no fresh material on record, three persons have been held guilty of causing the alleged amount of loss. According to the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show as to how the loss has been calculated and apportioned among the three persons. And on what basis the petitioner has been awarded punishment of recovery of 50% of the amount of Rs. 1,88,153/ - coupled with deduction of 10% from his pension amount.
(3.) MR . M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have passed the impugned order whimsically without any fresh material or further inequity. He submitted that earlier, on the basis of the same inquiry report, the petitioner alone was held guilty and this time, three persons have been held guilty of causing loss to the Government. Learned counsel submits that two contradictory decisions on the same set of facts and material on record vitiates the propriety of the impugned order and renders the same perverse and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the amount of loss and the quantum of liability has been arbitrarily and illegally fixed by the impugned order, without any sound basis which is wholly unsustainable, and liable to be quashed by this Court.;