The court emphasized that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the nature of the charges held proved against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the orders of the first respondent made in G.O.(D).No.114, Environment & Forest Department, dated 03.04.2012 and that of G.O.(D).No.72, Environment & Foret [Forest.1] Department dated 19.03.2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend all benefits of pension fixation and pensionary benefits thereto.)

1. The order of punishment of cut in pension of Rs.2,000/- per month for five years imposed in G.O.(D).No.114 Environment and Forest Department dated 03.04.2012 which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Forester and promoted upto the level of Forest Ranger and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006. The petitioner was not permitted to retire from service through proceedings dated 25.05.2006 as grave charges were pending against him. Four charges were framed against the writ petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an enquiry and the petitioner defended his case before the Enquiry Officer also. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 are held proved and charge No.2 is held partly proved.

3. The charges against the writ petitioner are as under:

“LANGUAGE”

4. The petitioner submitted further objections on the findings of the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority issued the impugned order of punishment in G.O.(D).No.114 Environment and Forest Department dated 03.04.2012 imposing the punishment of cut-in pension of Rs.2,000/- per month for five years. The writ petitioner preferred a review petition and the said review was also rejected by the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.72 Environment and Forest Department dated 19.03.2015.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that though the charges were framed relating to sandalwood and the petitioner committed certain lapses in not handing over the sandalwood even after transfer, the said allegations were not established. In fact the sandalwood in question were handed over by the writ petitioner which was subsequently found. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charges are held proved is perverse. No doubt after the transfer of the writ petitioner, it took several months to complete the said process and by that time, there may be some weight loss of sandalwood which was not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the order of punishment is to be set aside.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the procedures as contemplated were followed. The petitioner even after his transfer had not handed over the sandalwood pieces to his successor. The allegation was enquired into and the authorities found that the charges are held proved. With reference to the contention of the writ petitioner that there was a weight loss, the respondent filed a counter and paragraph 13 of the said counter reads as under:

“13....... the final order passed by the respondents is well within their jurisdiction and not in excess of jurisdiction. The waiver of total loss assessed to Rs.29,42,857/- under G.O.(D).No.346 Environment and Forest Department dated 15.10.2013 is a different one from that of the case on record. Originally the loss to Government was estimated at Rs.1,47,34,263/-. But on enquiry it was found that sandalwood pertaining to 44 cases had completely been handed over and hence, there was no chance for the Government to have incurred a loss. But in the present case, there was a false report submitted by the petitioner as to the wei