Satya Parkash Vs. State of H.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - cancellation of penalty - ccs (cc&a) rules, 1965 - petitioner filed petition against penalty imposed by respondents/disciplinary authority by withholding five increments of petitioner - held, facts revealed that petitioner was charge sheeted for misconduct, misbehaviour, negligence and connivance in smuggling and enquiry was conducted upon him and then penalty was imposed on him by respondents authority - court opined that order of imposing penalty on petitioner was speaking order - further, allegations of petitioners that conducting enquiry was against procedure and enquiry report was not supplied to petitioner and day-to-day enquiry proceedings were also not supplied to him, are vague - and non-supply of copy of enquiry report to petitioner was found to be inconsequential - therefore, petitioner had failed to point out any procedural illegality committed during enquiry - hence, petition dismissed - code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the court covering all the issues framed in the suit.kuldip singh, j.1. the petitioner has assailed annexure pa dated 23.1.1989 imposition of penalty of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect, annexure pb communication dated 3.4.1991 informing the petitioner that his appeal against the order dated 23.1.1989 has been dismissed, annexure pc order dated 22.3.1995 dismissing the representation of the petitioner which was filed before the principal chief conservator of forests in pursuance to order dated 22.11.1994 passed by the erstwhile tribunal in o.a. (m) no. 443/1994.2. the pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was forest guard in forest range , urla, tehsil joginder nagar, district mandi and was posted at check post (forest) ghatasani in february, 1986, he was charge-sheeted by divisional forest officer, mandi vide annexure pd memo dated 30.8. 1986 with the allegations of misconduct, mis-behaviour, negligence and connivance in smuggling of timber in truck no. hid 6127, dereliction of duty and doubtful integrity. the alleged misconduct of the petitioner was enquired under rule 14 of the ccs (cc&a;) rules, 1965 (for short 'rules'), sh. h.s. pathania, a.c.f. mandi was appointed as inquiry officer, who submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and disciplinary authority imposed penalty of with-holding of five increments with cumulative effect vide punishment order dated 23.1.1989 annexure pa.3. the copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner despite requests, thus, the respondents had violated rule 15 of the rules. the disciplinary authority proceeded against the petitioner arbitrarily and in illegal manner while inflicting penalty of with-holding of five increments with cumulative effect. the inquiry officer was biased, he conducted the enquiry against the procedure. the day-today enquiry proceedings were not supplied to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. the petitioner had filed appeal dated 15.2.1989 annexure pe to the appellate authority namely conservator of forests, mandi.4. the appellate authority could not scrutinized the proceedings of inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority where a complaint was lodged against deputy ranger and kikkar singh, forest guard, who were working with petitioner in that check post along with others such as ashok kumar, bir singh and bishambher singh, who were lateron acquitted in appeal no. 23/1989 by the learned sessions judge, mandi vide order dated 2.12.1991 annexure pf.5. the petitioner was not a party to the criminal complaint and, therefore, inquiry officer and disciplinary authority were prejudiced and biased and they acted in a illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner. the proceedings were planted to implicate and punish the petitioner, who was not at all associated with a smuggling timber racket.6. the disciplinary authority had erred in punishing the petitioner for an alleged act of his brother ashok kumar, who was acquitted in an appeal by the learned sessions judge, mandi. the disciplinary authority remained unmindful and acted in a prejudicial manner by punishing the petitioner.7. the petitioner earlier filed o.a. (m) no. 443/1994 before erstwhile tribunal, who vide order dated 22.11.1994 annexure pi directed to consider the petition as representation. the representation was rejected on 22.3.1995 annexure pc without giving cogent reasons. therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.8. the respondents had contested the petition and filed reply. in the reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner was posted as forest guard at ghatasani check post and he was charge sheeted for mis-conduct, mis-behaviour, negligence and connivance in smuggling of timber in truck no. hid-6127 which passed through check post. the petitioner was charge-sheeted for dereliction of duty and doubtful integrity. in the enquiry report, the petitioner was found negligent in performing his duty, his connivance in smuggling of timber through check post. accordingly, major penalty under the rules was imposed by the disciplinary authority.9. the petitioner never approached the inquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority for supplying the copy of enquiry report. there is no violation of rule 15 of the rules. the enquiry was conducted properly by the inquiry officer in accordance with rules. the day-today statements recorded were supplied to the petitioner.10. the appeal filed by the petitioner was considered and was rejected vide office letter no. 169 dated 3.4.1991. the copy of order dated 23.1.1989 was supplied by the appellate authority to petitioner through range officer, sadar.11. the charges were enquired into through the inquiry officer who concluded that the petitioner had deliberately avoided assisting sh. hari singh, deputy ranger and kikkar singh, forest guard in checking illicit export of timber and fuel wood and he had connived with his brother and others who were behind illegal trade. the decision in criminal case cannot be made applicable to the petitioner who was not a party in the appeal.12. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken by the petitioner in the petition. he has submitted that the copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner while issuing show cause notice of the proposed action to be taken against him and has relied managing director, ecil, hyderabad v. b. karunakar : (1994) 4 scc 727 and union of india and ors. v. mohd. ramzan khan : (1991) 1 scc 588. it has been submitted that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by nonspeaking order. the inquiry officer was biased and conducted the enquiry against procedure, the day-today proceedings of the enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner. some employees were prosecuted for smuggling timber but they were acquitted by the learned sessions judge, mandi on 2.12.1991. the petitioner was not a party in the criminal case. the petitioner has been punished for the alleged act of his brother ashok kumar. the representation of the petitioner was rejected by principal chief conservator of forest without giving cogent reasons. the learned senior additional advocate general has supported the impugned orders.13. in mohd. ramzan khan's case, the supreme court has held that supply of enquiry report along with recommendation, if any, before the punishment proposed to be inflicted is necessary. it was also held that non-furnishing of the enquiry report amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. the punishment order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 23.1.1989 before the decision of the supreme court in mohd. ramzan khan's case. mohd. ramzan khan according to managing director, ecil hyderabad v.b. karunakar would apply prospectively from the date of decision of mohd. ramzan khan's case which was decided on 20.11.1990. in addition petitioner has not established any prejudice for not supplying copy of inquiry report. in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot take benefit of non-supply of copy of inquiry report to him at the time of show cause. therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of imposing penalty by the disciplinary authority has vitiated due to non-supply of copy of inquiry report is rejected.14. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by nonspeaking order annexure pb dated 3.4.1991. the petitioner while narrating the facts in the petition or in the grounds of petition has not pleaded that his appeal was not considered by the appellate authority nor there is an averment that annexure pb dated 3.4.1991 is not a speaking order. in absence of pleadings that annexure pb dated 3.4.1991 is not a speaking order, the petitioner at the time of hearing cannot be permitted to argue that annexure pb dated 3.4.1991 is not a speaking order. moreover, the appellate authority has upheld the punishment awarded to the petitioner by disciplinary authority. the appellate authority while affirming the punishment order of disciplinary authority is not required to give detailed reasons. the petitioner in the petition has not raised grievance that the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order. the representation of the petitioner in pursuance to order of the erstwhile tribunal dated 22.11.1994 was rejected by the principal chief conservator of forests vide annexure pc dated 22.3.1995. the petitioner has assailed order dated 22.3.1995 on the ground that no cogent reasons have been given in the said order for rejecting the representation. the petitioner here again has not pleaded that his representation was not considered by the principal chief conservator of forests or the order dated 22.3.1995 is not a speaking order.15. the petitioner has taken general plea that the inquiry officer was biased and conducted inquiry against the procedure. the day-today proceedings were not supplied to the petitioner. the respondents have specifically pleaded that day-today proceedings of the enquiry were supplied to the petitioner. the allegations of bias against the inquiry officer and punishing authority (disciplinary authority) are vague, moreover, when allegations of bias were alleged against the inquiry officer and punishing authority (disciplinary authority) then they should have been impleaded as parties by name in the petition. the allegations of conducting enquiry against the procedure except that enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and the day-today enquiry proceedings were not supplied to him, are vague. on facts, non-supply of copy of enquiry report is found to be inconsequential. similarly, it has not been established by the petitioner that day-today proceedings of the enquiry were not supplied to him.16. the acquittal of some accused by learned sessions judge, mandi on 2.12.1991 vide annexure pf has no bearing on the merits of the case so far petitioner is concerned. in appeal annexure pf ashok kumar, lal singh, bir singh and bishamber singh were parties and they had filed appeal against their conviction by the learned chief judicial magistrate, mandi on 30.9.1989. the petitioner was not party in that appeal. therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of acquittal of said persons by the learned sessions judge.17. this court is not sitting in appeal against the impugned orders. it is not the case of the petitioner nor it has otherwise been established that the case against the petitioner is of no evidence. the petitioner has failed to point out any procedural illegality committed during enquiry. on the quantum of punishment also, no case for interference has been made out. the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference, resultantly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.