O.P. Patel vs State of M.P. and Others

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Though multiple reliefs have been sought in the petition, however, reserving his right to challenge order dated 30.6.05 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 15.03.07 (Annexure P/6) passed by Managing Director, Jila Vanopaj Sangh Maryadit, Narsinghpur, before appropriate Forum under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, petitioner confines the challenge to orders dated 27.01.06 (Annexure P/3), 28.01.06 (Annexure P/4) and 14.02.07 (Annexure P/5). Vide these orders certain recoveries have been effected from the petitioner in lieu of loss to revenue allegedly caused by the petitioner by not recovering the amount of penalties from offenders.

Petitioner is a retired Deputy Ranger, Department of Forest, Government of Madhya Pradesh, w.e.f. 28.2.05. On his retirement provisional pension of Rs. 2945/- and an amount of Rs. 1,47,972/- was sanctioned vide Pension Payment Order dated 28.7.07, of which an amount of Rs. 92,594/- was paid.

Grievance of the petitioner is that subsequent to his retirement, he has been subjected to certain recoveries by the department by order dated 27.01.06, 28.01.06 and 14.02.07. It is contended that, these recoveries are effected without affording any opportunity of hearing at a stage when no relationship as master and servant exists.

So far as order dated 27.01.06 is concerned it is seen that recovery of Rs. 1997/- in lieu of 17 teak poles found short in Nistar Depot Bachai on a physical verification as on 03.06.05 when the petitioner was posted as Range Assistant. The recovery order as apparent therefrom is on the basis of verification which is not shown to have been carried out in presence of the petitioner. There is thus, denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in absence whereof, the order is not tenable and is liable to be quashed.

In respect of order dated 28.01.06 it is observed therefrom that recovery of Rs. 1160/- in lieu of cases pertaining to forest offences of the year 2002 and 2003 while the petitioner was posted as Deputy Ranger at Forest Range Bachai has been effected on the ground that recoveries from respective offences were not effected within limitation period resulting in loss to Government revenue. This order also seems to have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing as the return filed by respondents does not reflect any proceedings being drawn before arriving at a decision to effect recovery.

In view whereof, this order also deserves to be quashed.

In respect of order dated 14-2-2007, the same is in consequence to the appellate order. Facts on record reveals that the petitioner was subjected to proceedings for recovery of loss occasioned to the government exchequer because of expiry of limitation for recovery of penalties in 109 forest offence cases registered in Forest Range Mungwani between August 1995 to August 2001 when the petitioner was posted in said range as Forest Ranger. Show cause notice was issued on 9-11-2001. The reply filed by the petitioner since was found unsatisfactory an amount of Rs. 1,54,950/- was directed to be recovered with stoppage of two increment with non-cumulative effect. In an appeal decided on 26-12-2006, the punishment order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to reconsider as to the extent of accountability of the petitioner and other employees.

Petitioner challenges the order on the ground that, no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the disciplinary authority before arriving at a decision of petitioner''s accountability to the tune of Rs. 34,679/-. It is urged that on remand obligatory it was for the disciplinary authority to have given the notice and an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. It is further contended that the amount which is being recovered from the petitioner are recoverable from the offenders; therefore, the respondents are not justified in effecting said recovery from the petitioner. It is further contended that the State Govt. later on took a decision in April, 2003 to drop proceedings pending prior to 30-6-2002 under the Forest Act, 1927 and Madhya Pradesh Vanopaj Vyapar Viniyamana Adhiniyam, 1969, with that the entire guilt, if any, gets washed of.

The contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner are though attractive but have no substance.

In respect of plea regarding opportunity of hearing. It is not that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before holding him guilty of charges of dereliction in a duty of not taking timely action for recovery of penalty from the offenders resulting in loss to public exchequer. The petitioner alone was held responsible and accountable to the amount of Rs. 1,54,950/-. The appellate authority while not exonerating the petitioner of his misconduct, remitted the matter to fix accountability on the other government servants who were also found derelict in their duties resulting in loss to public exchequer. The petitioner did not challenge the finding of guilt and thus allowed the appellate order to attain finality. It was only for fixing the individual accountability that the matter has been remitted whereon the petitioner was found accountable for much less amount than he was held liable for by the disciplinary authority initially. It were only those employees against whom no proceedings were drawn and found liable were entitled for opportunity of hearing and not the petitioner. The order therefore, does not get invalidated because of non issuing second show cause notice to the petitioner. Similarly, merely because the amount which lapsed to be recovered were recoverable from the offenders and that the State Government later on dropped all the cases under Forest Act, 1927 and the Adhiniyam 1969 prior to 30.06.02 (though no final order to said effect has been brought on record) will not exonerate the petitioner of his guilt found to be proved.

In view whereof, no interference is caused with the order dated 14.02.07. The petition is partly allowed to the extent above. No costs.