Full Judgment
Permod Kohli, J.
1. Suspension of the petitioner made vide Forest Order No. 452 of 2003 dated 1-11-2003 issued by the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Petitioner was working as Range Officer, Dudu Range, Udhampur Forest Division. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner alongwith three other officials was placed under suspension on the allegation of illegal transportation of Chir Timber from Dudu Range, Udhampur Forest Division to Jammu. This suspension is pending inquiry. The suspension order has reference to the communication dated 10-11-2003 said to be issued by the Forest Minister. A copy of the said communication is also placed on the record. This communication is reproduced: --
'Subject: Transportation of auctioned Chir Timber from Dudu Range Chenani to Jammu.
On the basis of preliminary inquiry on the above subject, the prima facie involvement of the following officials has been established.
1. Sh S.D. Singh, the then Range officer, Dudu presently posted as Range Officer, Jindrah;
2. Sh Mohan Lal, Range Clerk, Dudo Range
3. Sh Madan Lal, Forest Guard, Depot, from where the stocks have been loaded and transported to Jammu.
4. Sh Om Parkash, Foredt Guard, Check Posd , Udhampur
Dy. Director, Forest Protection Force, Jammu may enquire into the matter on priority and submit a report within a fortnight. Pending enquiry the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest may place the above officials under suspension immediately and attach them with the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu.
Sd/-
Minister for Forest.
Principal Chief Cons of Forest,
Chief Cons. Of Forest, Jammu
Dy. Director, FPF, Jammu.'
2. From the above, it appears that the Minister for Forest appears to have conducted some preliminary inquiry and found involvement of the officials named therein and accordingly directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu to place the petitioner under suspension and attach him with the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu.
3. Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged this order primarily on the ground that the suspension has been ordered by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. It is further contended that the Minister Incharge is also not entitled to suspend the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956, which reads as under: --
:31(1). The appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Govt. in this behalf may place the Government servant under suspension where the :
(a) x x x x
(b) x x x x'
4. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that Principal Chief Conservator of Forest under whose signatures the impugned order is said to have been issued was out of State at the relevant time and he had not signed the order of suspension.
5. In the reply filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, it is stated that certain serious allegations were brought to the knowledge of Minister who issued D.O. letter for suspension of the petitioner and the instructions of the Minister were followed. In reply to specific allegations of the petitioner that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was out of station when the order was issued and he did not sign the order, the only reply that has been submitted is that the order has the approval of the competent authority.
6. Petitioner is a Gazetted Officer. Government is his appointing authority. Under Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 a Government servant can be placed under suspension by the appointing authority, or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf. In the case of Gazetted Officer, the appointing authority is the Government through its Minister Incharge of the Department. From the communication dated 10-11-2003 it is apparent that the Minister for Forest directed the suspension of the petitioner after holding some preliminary inquiry. He however, authorized the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to communicate the order. It is true that the order impugned dated 11-11-2003 has not been signed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as is evident from the record produced by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Court, but the fact remains that the suspension of the petitioner has been ordered by the Minister for Forest who is admittedly competent authority in the Government to place the petitioner under suspension. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no formal Government order has been issued and the Minister has only written a D.O letter. It is in-disputed that no formal Government order has been issued either in the name of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir or in any other form. There is no rule which prescribes the issuance of every order in a defined form. Minister of Forest being incharge of the Forest Department is deemed to be the Government for all practical purposes as he, is the person, who is entitled to take decision. In the present case a conscious decision has been taken that too after some preliminary inquiry. There are serious allegations of mis-use of official position against the petitioner and some other persons. Therefore, the Minister had the power to place the petitioner under suspension under Rule 31 of J&K; Civil Services) Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1956.
7. As far as the second limb of the argument of the petitioner that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests did not sign the order of suspension which was communicated to the petitioner suffice it to say is that the Minister had directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, to communicate the order after taking a decision for suspension. No particular mode of communication is prescribed under law. This is immaterial whether the order has been communicated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or any other person. Suspension of the petitioner is pending inquiry in view of the serious allegations of timber smuggling against him.
8. Mr. Thakur has been unable to persuade me to interfere in the matter. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
9. Record produced be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.