' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant has been asked to pay a penalty of Rs, 6,382 to meet the loss allegedly caused by him to the Government through his inability to prevent the illegal cutting of 58 trees from the Bhamba block under his supervision in the Lahore Forest Division. The penalty was imposed vide order dated 17th June, 1977 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Muzaffargarh Forest Division (respondent No, 2), who had been nominated as Authorised Officer for purposes of enquiry, etc. An appeal to the Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle (respondent No, 3), was rejected vide copy of order sent to the appellant on 22nd January, 1978.
2. Brief history of the case is that when the illegal cuttings were discoverred, three forest officials were, after a preliminary enquiry, subjected to departmental enquiries by the Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Division (respondent No. 1). They were : Muhammad Yusuf Gilani, Forest Ranger, Ali Gohar, Forester (the appellant) and Muhammad Sarwar, Forest GUard. Three different Enquiry Officers were appointed to look into the charges which involved inefficiency, misconduct and corruption. The respective Enquiry Officers found Muhammad Sarwar guilty of inefficiency only, Mohammad Yusuf Gilani was given benefit of doubt and held not guilty, while the appellant was found guilty on all counts. Later, respondent No, 3 directed that, under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, only one Enquiry Officer was necessary in such a case, therefore respondent No, 2 was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Authorised Officer for all the three cases. Respondent No 2, after issue of show-cause notices, etc., held the three officials guilty and imposed the above-mentioned monetary penalty on them,
3. The parties were heard. The appeal of Muhammad Sarwar, Forest Guard, against a similar penalty of Rs, 6,382 was also before this Tribunal as Case No, 253/182 of 1978. In that case, Muhammad Sarwar's appeal has been accepted on the ground that the Enquiry Officer (respondent No, 2) in his finding has not been able to link Muhammad Sarwar with the loss of the 58 trees as he did not come to a conclusion about Muhammad Sarwar's responsibility in this behalf. In the present case also, the same Enquiry Officer (respondent No, 2) has not discussed the merits of the case (in the absence of a defence on the part of the appellant) nor has he tried to establish that the timber found at Kot Radha Kishan Railway Station was really the product of the stolen trees.
' In view of the above and of the considerations which moved us to accept the appeal of Muhammad Sarwar, Forest Guard, in the same case of illegal cutting of 58 trees, this appeal is also accepted. There will, however, be no order as to costs,