Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Krishan Lal vs Ghanshyam Sukla on 18 January, 2017

Author: Jaswant Singh

Bench: Jaswant Singh

                                                                                   219
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                C.O.C.P. No.1013 of 2015
                                Date of Decision: 18.01.2017

Krishan Lal, Retired Forester
                                                                   ......... Petitioner
                                          Versus

Mr. Ghanshyam Sukla, I.F.S., Conservator of Forest,
Central Circle, Rohtak
                                                                 ......... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:    Mr. S.K.Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner.

       Ms. Shubhra Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
                        ****
JASWANT SINGH, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was working as a Forest Guard and on account of certain loss of plantations, two orders dated 25.02.2014 and 18.03.2014 were passed by the D.F.O., ordering recovery of different amounts under Para 8 of the Forest Manual. The statutory appeal was filed before the Conservator of Forest by the petitioner against the aforesaid two recovery orders. A separate charge-sheet dated 04.04.2013 was issued regarding "loss of Trees and less survival of plantations". The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet on 12.06.2013. Since no action was being taken on the appeal, as also in the pending disciplinary proceedings, he filed CWP No.22794 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2014 with a direction to decide the charge- sheet, as also the pending statutory appeal within two and three months, respectively, from the receipt of certified copy of that order. Since the needful was not completed within time, hence this contempt petition.

Upon notice, reply has been filed.

At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the present contempt petition has become infructuous as the statutory appeal has been decided, as also the disciplinary proceedings.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

January 18, 2017                                            (JASWANT SINGH)
Gagan                                                           JUDGE
                   Whether speaking/reasoned       Yes/No
                       Whether Reportable          Yes/No



                                 1 of 1
             ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 05:58:51 :::