The duty of the enquiry officer to provide a reasoned finding and the effect of a perverse finding recorded by the enquiry officer without application of mind and without assigning proper reason.

Rajendra Menon, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 3-5-1990 Annexure A/1 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 26-5-1994, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. In the year 1979 Petitioner was working as Deputy Range Officer in Range Jatara. On 15-3-1979 animals were found illegally grazing in the forest area i.e. the prohibited area. It was found that 4475 Sheep and 77 Camels coming from Rajasthan have entered unauthorizedly in the forest area. It is stated that animals were seized and case bearing No. 7024/1 was registered on the same date i.e. 15-3-1979 and seized animals were kept in the animal home of the forest department. It is stated that keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, the Range Officer, Jatara was orally told to take care of the animals and on 16-3-1979 by a written letter the Petitioner Swami Prasad Yadav was directed to ensure that the seized animals are not let-off. It is further the case of the department that on 16-3-1979 itself the offence was compounded and after imposing a fine of Rs. 21- per sheep and Rs. 15/- per Camel towards compounding fee a total fee of Rs. 10,105/- was imposed and by letter dated 16-3-1979 the then Range Officer intimated the Petitioner to recover the amount towards compounding of the offence and thereafter release the animals. It is alleged that vide order No. 455 dated 17-3-1979 Petitioner informed the authorities that the animals are not available in the Kanji House and therefore, he cannot recover the amount. For the aforesaid, Petitioner was found guilty, on the charge that Petitioner without receiving of the compounding fee released the animals and committed dereliction of duty and committed loss to the Government to the extent of Rs. 10105/-, the charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner. However, it seems that the Petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet and therefore, vide order dated 21-4-1987 the Divisional Forest Officer, Tikamgarh was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the Project Officer, Tikamgarh as 'Presenting Officer' to conduct an enquiry into the charge-sheet dated 21-1-1982 issued to the Petitioner. It may be taken note of that the incidence took place on 15th, 16th and 17th of March, 1979 and charge-sheet was issued on 21-1-1982 and Enquiry Officer was appointed after a period of five years on 21-4-1987. Finally, the departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The report of the Enquiry Officer is Annexure R/l is dated 14-2-1990. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report the impugned order of penalty was passed on 3-5-1990 and the appeal having been dismissed, Petitioner has filed this petition initially in the year 1999 as an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and after winding up of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court.

3. Shri K. C. Ghildyal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of the petition and to contend that the action taken against the Petitioner is unsustainable, basically canvassed three grounds. His first ground of attack was to the effect that in the Departmental Enquiry no defence assistance was provided to the Petitioner and therefore, in the absence of the defence assistance Petitioner was handicapped in effectively defending himself in the enquiry. The second contention was that documents relevant for defending the Petitioner and demanded by the Petitioner vide Annexure A/5, A/6 and A/7 were never supplied to the Petitioner during the enquiry. Learned Counsel submits that apart from various documents indicated in these communicates the letter dated 16-3-1979 on the basis of which Petitioner was directed not to release the animals till recovery of the fine was never p