Nirmal Singh vs Punjab State Forest Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of order dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Respondent No. 2 as well as order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by Respondent No. 1 in appeal filed by the Petitioner vide which recovery of Rs. 3,76,090/-has been ordered to be effected from the salary of the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per report of the Tehsildar, Kalanaur, which was based on verification by the Patwari, the loss to the crop and property occurred due to the heavy rain. Learned Counsel further submits that the alleged recovery has been made after a lapse of more than 17 years and the appellate authority has passed totally a non-speaking order and No. finding whatsoever has been given with regard to the fact that whether woods are part of maal or not.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the report of the Project Officer, Gurdaspur regarding sweeping away of the woods due to flood has not been authenticated by the revenue authorities. He further submits that ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner as he was served with show cause notice and after considering his reply, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is well speaking and the reasons have also been mentioned in the same. Learned Counsel also submits that the Petitioner has the remedy of second appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation but the same has not been availed. Moreover heavy loss to the tune of Rs. 4,07,731/-has been caused to the Corporation and there was No. proof in the report of Halqa Patwari also that the woods were swept away due to flood in the area. Learned Counsel also argued that simply by stating that woods were swept away due to heavy flood is not sufficient as it was the duty of the Petitioner to look after the woods and even he did not report the matter to the higher authorities with regard to sweeping of woods and now this plea has been taken by him just to save himself.

Heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents available on record.

The only grouse of the Petitioner is that the plea taken by him has not been considered in the impugned orders and simply by stating that it has not been proved that the woods were swept away in the flood is not sufficient. It is also the contention of learned Counsel that the order for effecting recovery from the salary is passed after a lapse of more than 17 years but he is not able to show anything from any document that the matter with regard to loss of woods was reported to any higher officer. Moreover, it is clear from the impugned order that the show cause notice was given and he was provided opportunity of hearing but neither in the C.W.P. No. 2580 of 2011 (3) reply of show cause notice nor during personal hearing, the Petitioner was able to produce any evidence with regard to sweeping of the goods. It was the duty of the Petitioner to report to the higher authorities with regard to that loss. Neither the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities nor any action was taken in this regard. Simply by stating that No. speaking order has been passed by the appellate authority does not help the Petitioner in any manner. When it has clearly been mentioned in the impugned order that the Petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence in this regard then it is not necessary that the orders are to be passed in so many words when the relevant thing has been mentioned in the impugned order as well as order passed by the appellate authority. No. ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.