GOURI SHANKAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application, praying, that two orders incorporated in Annexures 9 and 10 may be quashed. Annexure 9 was an order dated the 10th, Jan. 1968, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sasaram, dismissing the petitioner from service as Forest Guard. Annexure 10 was an order dated the 14th, Nov. 1969, passed on appeal by the Conservator of Forests, Bihar, dismissing the same.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner was a Forest Guard having been appointed sometime in 1953. It is said, that, in the night between April 20th and 21st of 1966, the Forester Incharge of Malhipur Beat named Sri Gaveshwar Prasad Singh was found murdered in his quarter in village Malhiour. In the early morning of the 21st a Forest Guard, named Izhar Hussain came in a truck to take Gaveshwar Prasad Singh and the writ petitioner was so informed so that he could tell Gaveshwar Prasad Singh about it. The petitioner went to inform Gaveshwar Prasad Singh but found him dead with some injuries. The petitioner, thereafter, went and informed about this matter to the Range Officer. The petitioner had gone to Chenari olice Station also and had lodged a first information report about this event. It is said in the application that the petitioner himself had been arrested on suspicion, after two days and, thereafter, the police had submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and two other persons under Sec. 302 read with section 149 and Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was suspended by an order incorporated in Annexure 1, dated the 1st May 1966. It is stated, further, that, the petitioner had been arrested on the 23rd April 1966 and was released on bail on the 29th May 1966 and was rearrested on 10th June 1967 and again released on bail on 14th. June 1967. It appears that on the 8th June 1966, an order had been passed by the Divisional Forest Officer fixing the petitioner's headquarters at Chenari Range Office. It appears, further, that the same place was fixed as the head quarters of two other persons namely. Sri Padarath Singh and Sri Ali Ahmad Ansari. The petitioner had apprehended that these two persons, figuring as witnesses for the prosecution, were endeavouring to get the petitioner prosecuted in the criminal case and so he sent a letter to the Chief Forest Officer. Sasaram to place him at the office of the Department, either at Sasaram or at Bhabua. This request was, however rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer on the 9th Aug. 1966 and the petitioner was asked to join Chenari Range Office within three days of the receipt of the order. It is said, that thereafter, the petitioner sent a petition to the Conservator of Forests, Magadh Circle, Patna, requesting him to interfere, so that the petitioner may be posted either at Sasaram or at Bhabua. It is said that, while the petitioner was waiting for the order of the Conservator of Forests, charges were framed against him on the 10th, Oct. 1966 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sasaram, for disobeying the order of the superior officer and for wilfully remaining outside the headquarters. The petitioner was asked to show cause against the charges. A copy of this communication has been marked as Annexure 5, It is stated that the petitioner submitted his show cause petition to the Divisional Forest Officer. Sasaram, stating, that, he had no intention of disobeying his order and that he was waiting for the order of the Conservator of Forests, who had been moved. A Copy of this show cause petition has been given as Annexure 6. It appears, that thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer passed his order on the 2nd Sept. 1967, holding, that, the charges had been proved and asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed. A copy of this order has been given as Annexure 7. Thereafter by Annexure 8 dated the 13th, Sept. 1967, the petitioner filed his second show cause petition. Thereafter, the dismissal order dated the 10th Jan. 1968 followed and the appellate order dated the 14th Nov. 1969 was passed in the course.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged several points on the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer fixing Chenari Range Office as the petitioner's headquarters. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioner had been suspended by Annexure 1 passed in May 1966, the relationship of master and servant was suspended and therefore, the Divisional Forest Officer could not pass any further command on the petitioner fixing his headquarters at Chenari by order dated the 8th June 1966. According to the learned counsel, under the rules of the State Government, there was no provision for fixing of headquarters after an order of suspension had been passed. It is also argued, that, it was the Conservator of Forests, who could have fixed the headquarters under the rules and the Divisional Forest Officer had no power to fix the petitioner's headquarters. It is also argued, that even if the headquarters had been fixed at Chenari Range Office this did not mean that the petitioner was to stay there all the time, as there was no order to that effect. Over and above these contentions raised by the learned counsel challenging the order dated the 8th June, 1966, the learned counsel has also argued that the procedure adopted by the authorities in this case was such that the dismissal order passed on the 10th Jan., 1968 was vitiated by non-compliance of Rule 166 of the Miscellaneous Rules of the Board of Revenue. Bihar, 1958, and non-compliance of rules of natural justice. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the second aspect of his contentions and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, we have come to the conclusion, that on the facts and circumstances of the case. It will not be necessary to decide the validity of the first aspect of the matter urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the writ case can be decided fully, on the second aspect of the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Therefore, certain details will now have to be given as to the procedure which had been followed by the authorities ending in the order of dismissal. By Annexure 5 dated the 10th Oct., 1966, the petitioner had been supplied charges and he was asked to submit his show cause petition within fifteen days of the receipt of this document. In compliance of the order, the first show cause petition (Annexure 6) had been filed on the 30th Nov., 1966. Having read Annexure 5, it is apparent, that, Rule 166 of the Miscellaneous Rules of the Board of Revenue was not fully complied with. The relevant portion of this rule is quoted below: