JUSTICE (RETD) RIAZ KAYANI, CHARMAN.- Muhammad Siddique, former Forest Guard, Okara Forest Division has come in appeal bringing in challenge order dated 3.11.2004 passed the Conservator of Forest, Coordination, Multan whereby appeal of the appellant was rejected and the order of the authority, dated 14.5.2004 imposing penalty of recovery of Rs.6,08,800/- being value of 155 trees as given in the Schedule of compensation rates alongwith the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was upheld and maintained.
2. Appellant while serving as Forest Guard, Incharge Block No. 1, Depalpur plantation was served with the charge sheet accompanied by the following statement of allegations:- "As per report submitted by Range Forest Officer, Depalpur vide his No, Nil, dated 17.10.1997, a list of damage in your Block was prepared by your successor Mr. Muhammad Munir, Block Officer. The detail of damage is as under:- ((TABLE))No. Name of Beat No. Of damage trees Amount
1. 4 AEW 64 Rs.3,00,700/-
2. 2R/South 45 Rs. 1,76,700/-
3. 5/L 68 Rs.2,81,400/-.
177 Rs.7,58,800/- The lists of damage are being enclosed, You, being Incharge of the beats and Block were responsible for the protection of Government property. You failed to protect are there are sufficient reasons to believe that the damage has taken place with your active connivance. Thus you are alleged to be guilty of following charges under E&D Rules 3a & 3c 1975." i. Misconduct. ii. Corruption."
Appellant denied the allegations stating that the area which fell under his beat was at a stone throw from the Range office Headquarter, therefore, it was impossible to cause such a huge loss, which went unnoticed, as the superior officers frequently come on tours. List of the trees lost/misappropriated was also disputed on the ground that when he relinquished charge, he was not asked to sign on and report, and it was only after the receipt of the charge sheet earlier that he came to know that some allegations have been levelled against him. The appellant was succeeded by Sabir Hussain, Forest Guard and when he went and checked the are&, the list of the missing trees in the report were still standing in the forest at their place. Some of the trees which have been damaged due to inclement weather, were entered in from 5 and placed in the depot and some trees which were stolen, damage report about the same trees which were stolen, damage report about the same was also given to the Block Officer, which was verified by him, and that the proceedings were taken against him due to mala fide. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and in reply to one of the questions put to him by the Inquiry Officer, appellant stated that Muhammad Munir and Sabir Hussain, Forest Guardes played fraud with him and got his signatures appended after making him believe that they would finish the case. Appellant stated that he left the charge of the Beat whereafter the trees disappeared. Appellant admitted in Beat No. 5/L and 2R/South at the the of relinquishing the charge to Sabir Hussain, he did not mention the number of trees. The Inquiry Officer further asked him that the report which he submitted with respect to Bear 4 AEW, it is mentioned that 12 trees were damaged 10 and trees were stolen, whereas on the spot, 64 trees were missing, and what explanation can be given about the 41 trees not mentioned or which were missing in his report. The reply of the appellant was that when he left the charge, the trees were standing in the jungle. To yet another question posed by the Inquiry Officer to the appellant whether he would like to examine the superior officers whom he stated to have visited his Beat and noticed the trees standing, the answer was in the negative. Appellant denied to produce any evidence in defence or wanted to get the area from where the trees were missing, checked once again, he also replied that he would not insist on further checking. The Inquiry Officer also examined Sabir Hussain, Forest Guard, who succeeded the appellant, and he was asked the basis of his report against the appellant, to which he replied that the report was prepared by him in the presence of Muhammad Siddique appellant when he assumed charge. But the appellant refused to sign it, rather stated that he would make good the deficiency, ln reply to another question by the Inquiry Officer that the appellant stated his signatures with respect to Beat 5/L and 2R/South were obtained by practicing fraud, the answer was a denial. Similarly Muhammad Munir, Block Officer, who was examined by the Inquiry Officer, stated that Muhammad Siddique (appellant) give a report regarding Bedt. 1-L, which contained 264 trees and he became suspicious as to why the report of other beats were not given to him, as such he checked the same and the report about the missing trees was submitted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report stating that Muhammad Siddique appellant took charge of the Forest Guard on 3.8.1997 comprising Block No.1, and relinquished the same on 30.8.1997, which means that he had the charge for 27 days. The two beats in Block No. 1 namely 2R/South and 5/L were handed over to Sabir Hussain Forest Guard by the appellant on 17.9.1997. On 26.7.1997, Sabir Hussain Forest Guard made a report that 68 trees were missing in Beat No. 5/L and 45 in Beat 2R/South, which were endorsed by Muhammad Munir Forester. When the matter reached the Divisional Forest Officer, Okara, he called for explanation from the appellant for the missing 177 trees. After hearing the appellant, Divisional Forest Officer appointed Muhammad Aslam, Divisional Prosecutor to check the forest, who vide his report dated 10.2.1998 confirmed the loss of the trees. The Divisional Forest Officer imposed the penalty of Rs.7,58,800/- as recovery for the Ibss of 177 trees. This order was appealed against by the appellant to the Conservator of Forests, Multan, lt was admitted by the Inquiry Officer that the actual value of the trees was Rs.1,44,000/- lt was further noticed that the appellant signed the report of the Divisional Prosecutor in token of its correctness admitting the missing of trees in Beat 5/L and 2R/South. Appellant during the inquiry also produced list of trees in 4 AEW, which indicated that out of 164 trees, 13 were accounted for. Similarly 10/11 trees were further accounted for. The remaining trees numbering 155 whose value came to Rs.1,97,163/- were unaccounted for. The Inquiry Officer recommended the appellant to be responsible for the loss. The Divisional Forest Officer, Multan Forest Division on 5.7.2001 imposed the penalty of Rs.1,97,163/- being the actual value of 155 trees.
However, the said order was set aside by the Appellate Court and a fresh inquiry was ordered. The Inquiry Officer vide his report, endorsed the findings of the earlier Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 16.3.2004. Appellant was heard by the Authority and after application of mind, imposed the penalty, now impugned.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that firstly the appellant was given penalties, one compulsory retirement from service, and the other compensation of the trees as given in the Schedule at enhanced rate, which was totally disproportionate to the offence committed, and prayed that the recovery be reduced to the actual value of tees (Sic) the determined by the Divisional Forest Officer, Multan in his order dated 5.7.2001 to be Rs.1,97,163/-
4. I have attended to the arguments of the learned counsel and find some substance in the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant, to which even he learned District Attorney agreed that in the face of penalty of compulsory retirement, appellant at the most should be burdened with the actual cost of the missing 155 trees, which comes to Rs.1,97,193/- instead of the enhanced rates as given in the compensation manual. I, therefore, partially accept the appeal and maintain the penalty of compulsory retirement, but reduce the recovery from Rs.6,08,800/- to Rs.1,97,163/-. There shall be no order as to costs.