1983 (1) TMI 283 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of reasonable opportunity to defend.
2. Negligence in performance of duty.
3. Illicit felling of trees and causing loss to Government property.
4. Proportionality of penalty imposed.

Summary:

1. Denial of reasonable opportunity to defend:
The appellant, a Forest Guard, contended that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the disciplinary inquiry. He was not informed about the appointment of a Presenting Officer for the department until three witnesses had already been examined. The appellant, being a Class IV government servant with limited educational background, was at a disadvantage as he was not provided assistance to defend himself, unlike his co-delinquent superior who had an officer to represent him. The Court held that justice and fair play demanded that the Inquiry Officer should have informed the appellant of his right to seek assistance from another government servant. The failure to do so vitiated the inquiry.

2. Negligence in performance of duty:
The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of negligence in the performance of his duty, as he failed to stop the felling of trees that were not hammer-marked. The appellant's defense that he sought advice from his Block Officer, who informed him that trees on private land could be felled without permission, was rejected. The Court noted that the Inquiry Officer's method of separating the inquiry and calling the co-delinquent as a witness against the appellant was questionable. The Court found the finding of negligence to be perverse and unsupported by evidence.

3. Illicit felling of trees and causing loss to Government property:
The charges against the appellant included illicit felling of spruce trees due to his negligence, causing loss to Government property. It was established that Kali Dass, a private individual, had cut and felled 21 spruce trees, of which 17 were on Government forest land. Kali Dass paid compensation for the trees, and no loss was caused to the Government. The Court concluded that the charges of causing loss to Government property were not substantiated.

4. Proportionality of penalty imposed:
The Court considered whether holding a fresh inquiry was warranted, given the minor infraction of duty and the trivial charge of negligence that caused no loss to the Government. The Court decided that a fresh inquiry would not be fair to the appellant, a low-paid Class IV government servant. Instead, the Court imposed a minor penalty of withholding two increments with future effect and ordered the appellant to be reinstated in service with 50% of the arrears of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of removal from service, dismissal of the appeal, and the High Court's dismissal of the petition were quashed. The appellant was reinstated in service with the penalty of withholding two increments with future effect and payment of 50% of the arrears of salary. The period between termination and reinstatement was to be treated as on duty for other purposes. The order was to be carried out within four weeks.