Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 2023:PHHC:057518
CWP-5062-2016
Date of decision: 24.04.2023
MOHAN SINGH & ANR .-Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This writ petition has been filed by two different petitioners.
While seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, they assail the
correctness of the orders passed on 12.08.2015 and 15.04.2009, whereby, with
regard to the petitioner No.1, one annual increment with future effect has been
stopped, whereas, qua petitioner no.2, two annual increments with future
effect have been stopped. The petitioner was working as a S.C.A., whereas,
petitioner No.2 was working as a forester. In response to the charge sheet
issued, the petitioners submitted their detailed reply. Ultimately, Inquiry
Officer found that some of the charges against petitioner No.1, whereas, all
the charges against petitioner No.2 have been proved. After grant of
opportunity of hearing, the order penalizing the petitioners has been passed.
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioners contend that
there is no loss to the Government as the compounding fee has been
deposited. He submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable as they
have been punished twice. While invoking doctrine of double jeopardy, the
learned counsel representing the petitioners pray for setting aside the said
voup avuszOrders.
2023.04.27 10:40
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
3. On the other hand, the State has filed an affidavit explaining that
the compounding fee has been recovered from the persons who had violated
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. However, despite clear orders, the
petitioners have failed to initiate proceedings against the accused persons for
violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The response filed to para 3, 4
and _ 5 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement, reads as under:-
"3, That notice has been issued by Sh. Vipul Chander
Chaudhary, PFS, the then Forest Divisional Officer,
Jalandhar on 10.05.2006 and petitioner no. I was directed
to initiate action against the violators for carrying out the
illegal activities at GT Road KM 364-365 on the right side
and the centre of the showroom Ghumman International
by its owner. The same was witnessed by the Forest
Conservator Bist Circle Jalandhar Sh. Jarnail Singh IFS
and he also witnessed the loss caused to the trees due to
breaking out of fire at GT Road KM 348-50 on the left side
in lot of area and Sh. Mohan Singh SCA was directed vide
letter dated 18.05.2006 to click the photographs and issue
the damage report to the accused persons and file the case
in the court. it is clearly depicted from the evidence that
the petitioner Mohan Singh despite having clear orders for
initiating proceedings against the accused persons for
violation of Forest Conservation Act i980, he had
compounded the case after receiving compensation from
the accused instead of filing the case against the accused/
owner of the showroom in the court and thus violated the
orders of higher officers.
it is pertinent to mention here that Mandeep Singh,
Forest Guard issued the damage report no. 131313 dated
16.05.2006 in the name of some labourer called Hira
Singh son of Kalu Ram regarding violation of FCA instead
of issuing the same to the owner of the showroom who has
violated the PCA,
4, That it is also worthwhile to mention here that the
false damage report has been prepared. The accused has
leveled the ground by pouring/ filling around 180 Meter
soil on the place of violation, whereas, in the damage
report, it has been shawn as 20 headloads soil, whereas,
the forest guard has mentioned that 20 men were emploved
for the task of levelling the ground.
The charges framed against the petitioners which
show the embezzlement and tllegalities done in performing
duties on the part of the petitioners and the difference
shown after comparison of damage report issued by the
forest guard and the physical verification done by the
MOHD AYUB
2023.04.27 10:40
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
MOHD AYUB
Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Jalandhar has been
categorically mentioned in the charges against the
petitioners which has been clearly discussed in the inquiry
report Annexure-P3,
5. That the petitioner Mohan Singh, SCA in his defence
version presented to the inquiry officer (Annexure 5)
(letter No. 41 Phagwara dated 06.05.2006) same is
specified in last para of present CWP Le. page no. 55, a
letter written to Amarjit Singh Forester has admitted that
due to fire, the trees hve been scorched. But Mohan Singh
SCA has written in his report sent to the Forest Divisional
Officer, falandhar that GT Road on the left side Kilometer
348-350 the fire breaks out only till ground level and only
litter caught fire, which clearly shows that the petitioner
intentionally presenied the false picture to their senior
officers in their reports."
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner does not dispute
that the compounding fee has been recovered from the alleged violators.
Hence, the petitioners have not deposited the aforesaid amount from their
pocket. Consequently, the defence of double jeopardy is not available to the
petitioners.
5. It is evident from the examination of paperbook that the
petitioners who are the officials of the Forest Department have failed to take
action despite specific orders from their superior officials.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to issue the writ
as prayed for, is made out.
7. Dismissed.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 24", 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2023.04.27 10:40
| attest to the
accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
