1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Messrs Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Ijaz, ex‑Forest Guards, have filed these appeals against the orders, dated 12th February, 1981 and 11th May, 1981, by which they were removed from service with immediate effect and their appeals preferred before the Conservator of Forests, were rejected. They have impleaded Divisional Forests Officer, Nilibar Forest Division, Sahiwal and Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan, as respondents.

2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugned orders, dated 12th February, 1981 and 11th May, 1981, be set aside and they may be re‑instated in service with full benefits of emoluments.

3. As both the appeals are identical in nature, therefore, I will dispose of these two appeals with this single judgment.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under : The canal side plantations were transferred from the administrative control of the Forests Department to the Irrigation Department, w. e. f. 1st July, 1979. In view of the above D. F. O. Nilibar, directed S. D. F. O., Pakpattan and Range‑ Officer vide letter No. 17‑20/R K, dated 2nd July. 1979, to hand over the charge of nurseries and young plantations to the Irrigation Department giving success percentage against each mile No immediately so that these should be maintained and irrigated regularly and properly to save them from further deterioration. With regard to the rest of the trees which were more than one foot in girths, were ordered to be enumerated and list prepared in triplicate jointly by the Forest Guard, Block Officer and Canal Sub‑Engineer and was to be signed by them accordingly before handing over physical charge of tree plantations to the Irrigation Department. The D. F. O. Nilibar also issued further order vide his letter No. 608‑11/R K dated 30th August, 1979, that until and unless all the trees along the canal sides were handed over in writing and signatures of canal staff would be obtained, Forest Department would be held responsible for any damage/ pilferage and shortage, if occurred, either with or without the connivance of the canal staff. One Zainaul Abedin of Chak No. 289/FB on 28th August, 1979 reported about the illicit damage of the trees along 3L/3L P. C. of Umerpur West beat of Burewala Block. D. F. O, Nilibar deputed Mr. Riaz Hussain D. P. to visit the site of the damage and to investigate into the matter. Mr. Riaz Hussain visited the site on 29th August, 1979 and prepared a list for the damage of 19 trees. It was found that 15 trees were cut and removed from the site. D. F. O. Nilibar also inspected the site of damage on 2nd September, 1979, and confirmed that list of damage prepared by Mr. Riaz Hussain fully correct. During Investigation it was found that the appellants alongwith six others were found responsible for this damage. The trees were illicitly cut and removed between the night of 28th August, 1979 and 29th August, 1979, there from through Tractor‑trolly. A case was also registered with the Police. The appellants were served with show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E. & D.) Rules, 1975, as to why one or more major penalty (s) as provided under the rules be not imposed upon them. The appellants submitted their explanations in response to the show- cause notices which were considered unsatisfactory. The appellants were also provided an opportunity of personal hearing and their statements were properly recorded. This exercise ended into the passing of impugned orders, dated 12th February, 1981 and 5th November, 1981, and they were removed from service. Meanwhile the persons responsible for the damage, were also made to pay the cost of the trees. The appellants filed appeals before the Conservator of Forests which were also rejected. Hence these appeals.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly relied on the first order, dated 1st July, 1979, which directed S. D. F. O. Pakpattan and Range Officers informing them that hence onward the Irrigation Department would be in control of the trees on the canal banks. In this way it has been argued by him that the appellants had nothing to do with the look after of the trees and if the damage bad occurred, it was due to the negli gence of Canal Officers and not the appellants. He has also tried to pursuade us that the Irrigation Department has assumed the control of the trees and did not allow the Forest Department to continue patrol to safeguard the property which was earlier within its control. According to the learned counsel with this situation at the site, the D. F. O. Sahiwal was not justified to hold the appellants guilty for the said damage.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has heavily relied upon the orders of D. F. O. Nilibar, dated 30th August, 1979 in which it was clearly stated that until and unless physical charge was banded over to the Irrigation Department by the Forest Department, after enumeration of the trees on the site, the Forest Department would remain responsible for any damage caused to the said property. It has been submitted by him that in view of the clear direction on the subject to the appellants they could not take any shelter behind the first order of general nature.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments‑so raised before me and find the letter relied upon by the D. A. is very much on the record and the direction therein was clear on the subject which for all purposes has demolished the defence so put up by the appellants based the earlier letter of 1st July, 1979. It is also established on the record that Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Ijaz clearly admitted their guilt before the D. F. O. and also conceded that damage was caused before the charge was handed over by them to the Irrigation Department. The claim of the appellants that they were prohibited by the Irrigation Department to patrol within their beats is nowhere proved from the record of this case. Their oral claim without being substantiated by any positive evidence was rightly rejected by the D. F. O. who gave them full opportunity to bring forth their point of view if they so desired. Muhammad Saleem Forest Guard also admitted the damage of 5 trees valuing Rs. 1,520 from 4‑R/3‑L R. D. 3 to 15/L. in his beat. His only plea was that damage had not come to his knowledge till the said party reached at the spot. This defence was rightly repelled as the appellant admitted that he had not yet handed over the charge of the beat to the Irrigation Department eovlion to the damage. In this way the D. F. O. was fully justified to hold that in view of the clear cut direc tion to Muhammad Saleem (appellant) he was to continue patrol and could not escape the liability of the said damage. When he was asked by the D. F. O. as to why he did not regular petrol in his beat to protect the trees which were under his charge, he had no reply to it. He further conceded that the damage report was issued under the orders of D. F. O. and not at his own.

8. A perusal of the detailed judgment of D. F. O., dated 14th February, 1981 clearly establish that the case against the appellants was proceeded in accordance with the rules and they were given opportunity of personal hearing by him. I have given my carefully attention to all the facts narrated in the judgment as well as the point of view put forth by the appellants and find that the impugned judgment is un exceptionable.

9. In view of the above I am of the considered opinion that the appellants did connive in cutting of the trees while they were fully respon sible for the protection of the said damaged property in view of the clear cut directions given to them by their superiors. The result is that I proceed to dismiss the appeals as being without any merits. However, the parties will be at their own costs. M. I. Appeals dismissed.