Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.L.Kushwaha vs The State Of M.P on 30 April, 2010
W.P. No.17494/2003
30.4.2010
Shri K.S. Wadhwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jaideep Singh, Govt. Advocate for respondents.
Heard.
The petitioner had filed an original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur vide O.A. No.1793/2001 on 18/6/2001. After abolition of the Tribunal, the said original application has been transferred to this Court which has been registered as W.P. No.17494/2003.
2. The petitioner, in this petition, is challenging the orders of recovery which were passed by the Divisional Forest Officer dated 5/8/1991 whereby recovery of Rs.5,490.91 N.P. and Rs.24,881.26 N.P. was ordered in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 21/1/1981 (Annexure-A/3) and show cause notice dated 8/4/1990 (Annexure-A/3). The said recovery orders being amount of shortage/drying in transportation of Gum (Gond) from Khandwa Region to Indore Depot. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 which was dismissed on 30/3/1998 (Annexure- A/10). Thereafter again a representation was made before respondent No.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 15/1/2001 (Annexure-A/11).
3. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner was posted as a Forest Range Officer, Khargone from 1970 to 1978. During the said period charge Gum (Gond), Forest produce was transported from Godown, Kharnone to Navratan Bagh Godown, Indore in different carting challans, the shortage on receipt of said Gum (Gond) acknowledged by in the Indore. It was established that the petitioner himself in-charge of the godown, Khargone and challans were also issued by him, during the transportation of few hours, shortage were occurred. Copies of challan and receipt of Gum (Gond) are collectively marked and filed along with the return as Annexure-R/1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Khargone issued show cause notice to the petitioner for the loss to the State Government amounting to Rs.24,881.26 N.P.(Annexure-A/
2). Thereafter another show cause notice was issued on 21/1/1981 to the petitioner as to Government loss amounting to Rs.5,490.51 N.P. (Annexure-A/3) . The petitioner submitted its reply vide Annexure-A/6. After considering the reply of the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed an order dated 5/8/1991 (Annexure-A/7 and A/8).
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was himself in-charge of Dumping (Temp) Depot, Khargone Range. During the porting in the Khargone Range, the petitioner had issued several carting challans in respect of Gond (Gum) transportation vide Annexure- R/1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of recovery is contrary to the guidelines framed by the Forest Department due to drying of the material which was transported from Khargone to Indore and there was shortage of material.
6. As per circulars dated 26/8/1972 and 1/8/1967 (Annexure- R/4), respondent No.4 is competent authority to take action under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 against the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time, was working as Forest Range Officer. The petitioner challenged the order of recovery by filing appeal which was rejected by respondent No.3. Thereafter he filed second appeal which was also dismissed by respondent No.2. As per challans Gond (Gem) was transported to their depot, was dispatched by the petitioner, hence he is responsible for the said shortage. Prior to passing of the recovery orders, all necessary documents were made available to the petitioner but he could not receive the same.
7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents committed any illegality in recovering the amount from the petitioner nor they committed any illegality in passing the impugned order of recovery from the respondents who was at that time In-charge of Godown and he was fully responsible for the shortage.
8. For the above reasons, The petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE