It is clear from the materials, the officer, who inspected and numbered the shortfall of trees, himself companyducted the enquiry, arrived at a companyclusion holding the charges proved and also strongly recommended severe punishment of dismissal from service.
We heard Mr. S.S. Shamshy, learned companynsel, for the appellants and Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, learned companynsel, for the respondent.
1, 3 and 5 which were allotted to the U.P. Forest Corporation for felling of marked dead, dying and diseased trees.
On being questioned by the SDO, the respondent companyld number satisfy the SDO.
Nainital and dated 27.4.1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital dismissing the respondent from service.
The High Court has directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent in service with all companysequential benefits.
On the other hand, one Mr. P.C. Lohani, Dy.
Having seen the hammer marks on the seized logs, on 24.5.1984 the SDO directed Range Officer to trace the illicit felling of trees in and around Dolpokhra.
The High Court vide order dated 15.5.2005 issued a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 5.3.1986 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani as well as order dated 27.4.1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital.
Charge 3 You have shown negligence in discharging your duties.
On the basis of the inquiry report, the Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 6.3.1986 dismissed the respondent herein.
Questioning the said order, the respondent herein preferred writ petition before the High Court praying for issuing a writ of certiorari.
Having companyfirmed the involvement of the respondent in the illicit felling of trees, the Division Forest Officer, Haldwani Forest Division by letter No.
606 of 2003 SS whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed quashing the orders dated 5.3.1986 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani Forest Division, Dist.
The brief facts are stated as under The respondent herein was a temporary Forest Guard and was posted in Nandhaur Range of Haldwani Forest Division, Nainital.
Thereafter, enquiry was entrusted to Sri P.V. Lohni, who submitted his report on 16.11.1985 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani.
On the other hand, according to him, the enquiry was companyducted according to rules and the punishment was awarded based on the gravity of charges proved.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for the respondent supported the impugned order of the High Court by pointing out the infirmities in companyducting enquiry.
In the diary maintained by the Department, during the months of March and April, 1984, the respondent visited the above companypartments regularly and certified that there was numberillicit felling of trees in his beat during the period under reporting.
On 23.5.1984, sub Divisional Forest Officer, Nandhaur seized 27 logs of Sal bearing transit hammer mark of Dolpokhra Transit Barrier in Haldwani.
Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Uttaranchal, Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital and Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani Forest Division, Nainital.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellants mainly companytended that the High Court companymitted an error in quashing the order of dismissal of the respondent on the ground that the enquiry was number properly companyducted and was number free from bias.
On 19.12.1984, the Division Forest Officer served the charge sheet upon the respondent and the respondent gave his reply on 9.4.1985.
In the proceedings Letter No.
No witnesses were examined.
Charge 2 You have number obeyed the orders of your higher officials and you have traveled leaving your working without any reason in arbitrary manner.
Divisional Forest Officer, Nadhor acting as an enquiry officer after putting certain questions and securing answers submitted a report on 16.11.1985.
40/25 dated 1.6.1984, suspended the respondent.
In 1984, when he was incharge of Asani Beat in Nandhor Range of Haldwani Forest Division, illegal felling of 11 Sal trees and 24 Kokat species took place in Asani Beat Nos.
Apparently there was number even a presenting officer.
Now, let us companysider the merits of the case on hand and whether the High Court is justified in quashing the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority dismissing the respondent from service.
1644/8 Haldwani dated December 19, 1984 Annexure P1 after furnishing certain factual details, the following charges have been levelled against the delinquent Charge 1 You have companycealed the illegal cutting which took place in Asani Block from your higher officials deliberately which caused huge financial loss to the department.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital, Appellant No.2 herein and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.4.1981.
Sathasivam, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2006 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.
