The State Administrative Tribunal quashed an order imposing monetary recovery on a Forest Guard for alleged negligence causing illegal tree felling, holding that principles of natural justice were violated and the charge period was incorrect.
The impugned order of recovery of Rs. 33,846/- was quashed; matter not remitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Ca
BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR
O.A. NO. 2001 a)” MW”3333
APPLICANT : MADAN SINGH NAAG S/o SHRI H.R.NAAG Forest Guard Social Forestry,Jagdalpur Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.)
VERSUS
NON APPLICANT . Govt. of M P. ///through the Secretary Forest Department Govt. of M.P. Bhopal (M.P.)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985
BILA§PLJR HIQHQQURTOFQH&ATT!§§ARH, o 702 P
' MadamS‘mg'nNaag
—«—— Petitioner
Versus of MP.and others ' Government L --—- Respondent
Advoca MLManxshShanna, Advocate Government ForPetmoners Mr.P.<.Bhaduril ForState
W
nerFeelsaggrieved
directing
Authority
y
Disciphnar ofRs. 500/‘permonth,the by
Fromhi5saiaryininstaiiments Heisaisoag grieved 346/—. by the
\astinstaiimentbeingofRs. Oi.i0, i997 passed
dated
order
the appeiiate ssinghisappeal.
torofForest,dismi
Conserve a Forest
titioner,
tothepe
sheetvva sisgued
ch arge
Guard ,aiiegingthatduringthe aiCharge oFEast avingtheaddition
.1989,hewash
31.01 hatiNationaiForest.During etintheKangerG
KotamsarBe otcontroiandco mmittednegiigence
hedidn
this period,
r/
i
i ,
in preventing illegal felling in Forest Compartment No‘ 83, 84 & 85, due to which, 82 numbers of trees were found to be iilegally Felled causing loss of Rs.91,686/~ to the Government. On submission of enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority in principally concurred with the Findings, however, the number of trees felled and the extent of loss suffered by the State Government were assessed differently. instead of loss of Rs.9i,686/—, the ,DisciplinaryAuthority foundthat the-loss sustained by the Government is to the tune of Rs. 44,846/—, outlofwhich, recovery of Rs.3_3,846/— was directed against the petitioner.
. it is argued by learned'counsel for the petitioner that the petitionerwascnot served with the copy of the enquiry report, whichis proVed’by the communication sent to the petitioner by the Director; Kanger Ghati National Forest on 27021997 (Annexure A/6), therefore, there being violation of principles of natural justice as held by the Supreme Court in the matterof Union of india Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 ,the order of punishment is vitiated. it is also argued that there is no proof that the petitionerwas holding additional charge of East Kotamsar Beet for the period from 30.1 1.1 984 to 3101.1 989.
. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the prayer made in the writ petition.
Perusal of the record of the enquiry proceedings would reveal that it was the consistent stand :r’i w- . M‘m‘ of the petitioner
that it was one K.B‘ Singh or S.K. Sharma, who were having the charge OF East Kotamsar Beet during the relevant periodand the petitioner has been made scapegoat only because assembly questions were raised regarding illegal Felling in the East Kotamsar Beet. The record contains the document where on transfer OF KB. Singh,-the Game Keeper of Kanger Ghati National Forest having charge of East Kotamsar Beet, to some other range, the petitioner s was handed over additional charge on 07.05.1988 and ' 7 V thereafter, the petitioner handed over the charge to the regular incumbent Mr. S'.K. Sharma on 11.12.1988dThus, the petitioner was holding additional charge of East Kotambasar Beet during the period from 07.05.1988 to 11.12.1988 i.e. for a period of about 5 months, whereas, the charge sheet issued to the petitionerstates that he was holding additional charge from 30.11.1984 to 31.01.1989. There is no proof either to establish that the stumps of the trees, which were illegally felled, were of the recent originvor were so felled during the period from 07.05.1988 to 11.12.1988. Since one KB. Singh or Mr. Sharma were holding the regular charge for major period, unless, it is found proved by direct evidence of conclusive nature that illegal felling were carried out during the relevant period when the petitioner was having additional charge, he cannot be held responsible for the illegal felling
in addition to the above, it is also to be seen that it is not only a case of failure to supply copy of the enquiry report, l l"' i,
but there is categorica[ refusal by a written communication to supply copy of the charge sheet to the petitioner. in Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra), it has been held that non supply OF copy of the charge sheet to a delinquent violates principlesofnaturaljustice.
. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed.
/,
WW - ,ff,’
i Sdl-
J ( Judge
(PrashantKumarMishra)
Shyna
Maw
3 issues framed by the court
Whether principles of natural justice were violated by the failure to serve the petitioner with the enquiry report and charge sheet.
Whether the petitioner could be held responsible for illegal felling of trees during a period he did not hold the relevant charge.
Whether the impugned recovery order deserves to be allowed or quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan KhanReferred¶43
Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Singh Naag
Government of M.P.
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
