The non-supply of the enquiry report and lack of opportunity to respond to it constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering the punishment order unsustainable.

ORDER :

(Parth Prateem Sahu, J.)

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P1) passed by the respondent Digitally signed by no. 2, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of pay and allowances withheld pursuant to the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 to the petitioner with interest at 18% per annum on the withheld amounts from the dates withheld to the date of refund.

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the period of suspension as period spent on duty.

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to draw the annual increments due during the period of suspension till the impugned order 31.12.1991 and the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of the passed and countersigned T.A. bills amounting Rs. 3186/- along with interest at 18% per annum on the amount of increments and T.A. bills withheld deliberately till the date of payment.

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents. 10.6 That, any other order of orders or direction or relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Forester was engaged for felling of bamboos at Coupe “C” Mukwa in production range Jatga North Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur. The felling of trees was on account of construction of exit path from Coupe. Petitioner has engaged about 40-50 labourers for felling of bamboo in Coupe “C”. Inadvertently the labourers felled the bamboos outside the boundary of Coupe “C” in Coupe “D” range and when petitioner came to know the mistake of labourers engaged by him, he immediately stopped the work of felling of bamboos and informed his senior of extra felling of bamboos by labours on 20.11.1988. During the course of inspection also he found some tress were cut by unknown person and he has also seen some illegal activities in compound 108, 109, 113 of which he has also made complaint. After conducting enquiry, it was alleged that by the negligent act, 344 trees have been felled illegally within one year in the compartment of 108, 109, 113 of Coupe “C”. Petitioner was served with a charge-memo and thereafter departmental enquiry proceedings was initiated against him. On 13 occasions, petitioner made request to supply the copy of field list of enumeration of illicit stumps of 344 trees. However, the said documents were not supplied. The documents were even not proved before the Enquiry Officer as they were not produced. Supply of the said documents was refused on 03.11.1991 (Annexure P-6). After conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was penalized by having his pay scale reduced to the minimum pay of a forester. Petitioner preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed.

3. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that apart from the other grounds raised in the writ petition, primary grounds on which he is making submission is that petitioner was not given opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to submit his brief in terms of Rule 14 (19) of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules,1996 (In short ‘the Rules, 1966’). The order of punishment was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer on 31.12.1991, however, before passing of the order of punishment, copy of enquiry report was was not furnished to petitioner and no explanation/representation was called for and thereb