The judgment established the importance of adhering to the principle of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and emphasized the need for proper opportunity to defend and the supply of relevant documents.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition against the order dated 26/09/2011 passed by Respondent no.1 in the name and by order of Governor whereby a major penalty under Rule 10(viii) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Government has been imposed on the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed through Public Service Commission on the post of Ranger in the Forest Department. When the petitioner was posted as Forest Ranger in Pandariya Range from 10/1998 to 07/1999 under Baiga Pariyojana, some of the works were performed by him and on finding irregularities in the work done by him, a complaint was made to the Collector concerned alleging the irregularities committed by the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on direction of the Collector conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the Collector, wherein irregularities were found against the petitioner’s work. On the basis of said report, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kawardha Division vide letter dated 03/06/2000 noticed the petitioner to show cause, for which the petitioner specifically replied that Van Pal and Van Rakshak get the assigned work done which is verified by Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest) and after certifying the same, the work is done as per the expenditure then only the Divisional Forest Officer sanctions and disburses the amount to Area Officer (Ranger). Subsequently, one Rameshwar Das Mahanand made a complaint before the Collector, Kawardha, Forest Department (Forest Conservator) and also before the Lok Ayog regarding no action being taken on the basis of the enquiry report dated 06/05/2000. Again on the aforesaid complaint, Lok Ayog had not taken steps at that moment whereas the Conservator of Forest directed Divisional Forest Officer to make a detailed pointwise enquiry into the matter and as such the Divisional Forest Officer appointed Shri A.R.Bhaskar Sub Divisional Forest Officer, as the inquiry officer and directed him to submit his report. Simultaneously Collector, Kawardha also acting over the said complaint appointed a Committee of three members to inquire into the matter vide his order dated 05/06/2000 and the Collector had also constituted an Enquiry Committee for enquiring the same matter, which according to the petitioner was not informed to him. The enquiry officer Shri AR Bhaskar initiating the inquiry noticed the petitioner vide letter dated 14/08/2002 informing the petitioner about the complaint of Rameshwar Das Mahanand and directing him to be present on 19/08/2002 so that the spot inspection can be done and inquiry be made. The petitioner as directed appeared on 19/08/2002 and filed his detailed reply specifically mentioning that because of complaints of unknown persons he is continuously being harassed whereas he had already submitted his detailed reply earlier also and had justified the work performed by him during his tenure. The enquiry officer completed the enquiry after spot inspection and after recording evidence of witnesses came to the conclusion that during the enquiry it was found that in the entire sanctioned works of the Baiga Pariyojana, no complaint was found to be true and the sanctioned works have already been completed, as such he recommended for closure of the complaint. Subsequently, after lapse of 7 years on 09/04/2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest stating that a complaint has been filed in the Lok Ayog alleging that when the petitioner was posted as Ranger in Pandariya complaint against him was inquired by the then SDO (Revenue), in which various irregularities have been found as such why not the action be taken against the petitioner under CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 for violation of Rule 3 of the CG Civil S