DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER and another vs GULAB DIN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Divisional Forest Officer and the Conservator of Forests against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a retired Forester, faced disciplinary proceedings regarding alleged financial loss to the government during his service. Although an initial inquiry in 1985 exonerated the respondent, the Chief Conservator of Forests later ordered a de novo inquiry. Subsequently, in 2003, the department issued a show-cause notice under the Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963, leading to an order for the recovery of funds from the respondent's pension. The Punjab Service Tribunal set aside this recovery order, finding that the department's case lacked evidence, particularly given the prior inquiry report absolving the respondent of misconduct. The Supreme Court considered whether the Tribunal's interference was justified. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly identified the absence of evidence supporting the department's claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that in the absence of substantial questions of law or public importance, the findings of the Service Tribunal regarding evidentiary sufficiency remain undisturbed.
- Can a department initiate recovery of pension based on a de novo inquiry when a prior inquiry has already absolved the civil servant of misconduct?
- Does a finding of 'no evidence' by a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a show-cause notice for recovery of pension valid when the underlying allegations of misconduct were previously cleared by an inquiry officer?
- Rule 1.8(a), Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules 1963
ORDER
' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- Divisional Forest Officer, Kasur and Conservator of Forests seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7-8-2003 of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. Facts of the case are briefly noted hereunder.
2. Gulab Din, the respondent herein, retired as Forester from the service of the Forests Department, Government of Punjab on 20-8-1996. During the service, an inquiry was conducted against him for causing loss to the Government in the matter of sale of `Mudhies'. The inquiry was completed as back as in 1985 and the finding returned in favour of the respondent by the Inquiry Officer. However, vide order 21-2-1989, the Chief Conservator of Forests directed a de novo inquiry which was not completed when the respondent was in service. On 19-2-2003, a show-caused notice was addressed to the respondent under Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1963, for stoppage of his pension. The respondent contested it. However, the Divisional Forests Officer, vide order, dated 18-3-2003 directed recovery of Rs,55,081 from the respondent and his appeal was dismissed by the Conservator of Forests vide order, dated 23-4-2003. The respondent however, succeeded before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel. His main contention is that the competent authority and Departmental Appellate Authority had duly examined the case of the respondent and therefore, interference by the Punjab Service Tribunal was not called for.
4. The submission has not impressed us. The finding of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is that the case was one of no evidence particularly in the existence of the inquiry report absolving the respondent from any misconduct.
5. No substantial question of law of public importance has been raised to warrant interference. This petition is dismissed and leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Mulazim Hussain vs Government of the Punjab and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1184