Allahabad High Court
Umesh Kumar Khare vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 31 March, 2016
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14000 of 2016
Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Khare
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
It is stated that the petitioner was a Member Secretary of Joint Forest Management Committee in the Japan International Cooperation Agency. In the said project, people, who are dependent upon forests and forest's produce are encouraged to participate/cooperate with the Forest Department so that the management, protection and development of such identified forests may be carried out in a joint cooperative manner.
It is stated that the State Government has framed Uttar Pradesh Village Forests Joint Management Rules, 2002 for the purposes of constituting joint forest management committees at Village level, Regional level, Divisional level and State level.
It is stated that the petitioner was posted at Barabeet range in district Mahoba. In the said range a plantation/afforestation drive was executed in 2011 and during the said period around 50 acres of forest land was under the plantation/afforestation drive.
On the basis of inspection which was said to be carried out on 26.11.2011 and 27.11.2011, the petitioner was subjected to enquiry on the ground that in the inspection, which was found that the success rate of plantation/afforestation was less that the prescribed success rate. Only on the said ground, a recovery of Rs.3.36 lacs has been issued against the petitioner.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was a Member Secretary and as per the said scheme, it was not his duty for maintenance, protection and development of the forest under the aforesaid project as it was the joint responsibility of the committee and the entire liability has been imposed upon the petitioner.
It is urged that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2015 and on the basis of the said punishment order, the post retiral benefit of the petitioner has also been withheld.
Lastly, it is urged that the petitioner is a class III employee and in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), JT 2015 (I) SC 95, no recovery can be made against him.
Matter needs consideration.
The impugned order does not indicate that there is any allegation against the petitioner with regard to the financial embezzlement. The only allegation against him is with respect to success rate of plantation/afforestation and the alleged loss suffered by the State. From the impugned order, it is also evident that it was a joint responsibility of the entire committee and only petitioner cannot be held guilty for not achieving the prescribed success rate.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. Counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents on or before the next date fixed.
List this case on 12.07.2016.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the impugned order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Forest Conservator/Disciplinary Authority, Chitrakoot Circle, Banda shall remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- within four weeks.
Order Date :- 31.3.2016
AU
