1981 P L (PLP)

(i) Recovery of Rs. 300 on account of damage. (ii) Censured; Mr. Muhammad Sharif Forest Guard (i) Recovery of Rs. 300 on account of damage. (ii) Censured and warned to be careful in future. (iii) Stoppage of 2 increments with future effect.

3. Under rule 18 of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Government of the Punjab called for the whole record of proceed ings for review. After detailed examination of the case a de novo enquiry was ordered by the Government on 18th October, 1979. The second enquiry was conducted by Mr. Aftab Ahmad Divisional Forest Officer and not by Mr. Obaidur Rahman S. D. F. O. as alleged by the appellants. The appellants were issued notices to appear for enquiry on 30th October, 1979 but the appellant Mr. Muhammad Sharif Forest Guard did not join the proceedings. Next date for enquiry was fixed on 5th November, 1979 but the appellants did not participate in the enquiry although they were present to the office of the Enquiry Officer. Under rule 6.5 (ibid) they were also warned that if they would not join the enquiry the Enquiry Officer will proceed ex parte against them. As they did not join the enquiry proceedings despite issuance of warning, therefore ex parte proceedings were taken due to non‑co‑operation of the appellants. The Enquiry Officer held both of them guilty for the whole damage. The contention of the appellants for holding them guilty for the damage of 8 trees and 4 logs only is not correct because (i) the damage was there. In view of de novo enquiry, the previous proceedings stand quashed. The damage was detected by the raid parties and the accused manoeuvred to issue the damage reports if any after the raid to get rid of the legal action. The statement placed on record does not prove the coverage of this particular damage. (ii) the first enquiry has no effect in the light of Government orders dated 18th October, 1979. The second enquiry is based on facts and in accordance with the record ; (iii) in the written statement the appellants had accepted the findings given by the second Enquiry Officer. They bad further requested for mercy. The damage was fresh as reported by the Enquiry Officer and stated by the prosecution witnesses. The Enquiry Officer Mr. Aftab Ahmad Divisional Forest Officer has conducted the enquiry strictly in accordance with the Rules and he has held the appellants guilty. The appellants have denied their personal hearing before the Secretary Forestry and Wildlife Department but the record proves that they were heard by the said authority on 17th and 18th November, 1979. The appellate and the revisional authorities have already taken a lenient view while imposing the punishment. Under the circum stances detailed above, we find no grounds to interfere in the case of the appellants and reject their appeals. Appeals rejected.