1 2025:CGHC:890-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 232 of 2022 1 - Dhannuram Yadav S/o Shri Budhram Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Achanakmar, Tahsil - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Dks Bhawan Raipur (Now Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur ) District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 07.01.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2177 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.01.20 17:00:22 +0530 2 2 Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition as well as writ appeal are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Forest Guard on daily wages. Subsequently, his services was regularized and he was posted in forest area where wild animal freely moves and he was assigned duties to protect wildlife. During his posting at forest Jalda-Sarasdol barrier as Forest Guard, one female antelope was hunted which was found by some tourist who were visiting the forest area and saw the Green Scorpio Jeep standing near the hunted animal. The incident was reported to the petitioner who was on duty there, who, in turn, asked to intimate the incident to higher officer at Chhaparwa. When the higher officer of the Forest Department found involvement of the petitioner in hunting the female antelope, a forest offence was registered against the petitioner along with others and he was remained in custody for more than 48 hours. Departmental proceeding was initiated against him, charge sheet was issued and he was suspended. After full fledged inquiry, charge against the petitioner was found proved and a notice was issued on 14.10.2011 asking him to submit his defence for his punishment. The disciplinary authority while considering the enquiry report as well as statement of defence submitted by the petitioner, imposed penalty vide order dated 21.11.2011 and terminated the services of the petitioner. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 5/6.03.2012 which was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 3 Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material produced before it, dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner was found guilty in 3 departmental enquiry and even if he has been acquitted from the criminal charges, his services can be terminated as he was found guilty in departmental enquiry proceeding and the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority had considered the entire facts and evidence of the case. The said order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Single Judge is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submits that the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case and charges against him in criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings are the same. Once he has been acquitted from the charges in criminal trial, he cannot be punished in the departmental proceeding and therefore the impugned order passed by the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority is erroneous and no major punishment can be imposed upon him. He would also submit that in view of nature of the alleged offence, the punishment imposed upon him is excessive and disproportionate. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to reinstate the service of the petitioner. 5 On the other hand, the counsel for the State, opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the writ appellant and submits that after adverting the entire material produced in the writ petition, the Single Judge has passed its order which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7 From perusal of material as well as documents annexed with the petition it reflects that the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority has passed well reasoned order and there is a categorical finding of the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority that the 4 petitioner made an attempt to mislead the authorities during departmental enquiry with respect to hunting of the wildlife animal. Though the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charge, but he can be held guilty on the basis of material available before the enquiry officer during departmental enquiry proceeding. The nature of both these proceedings are different and in the criminal trial the prosecution is required to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt whereas, in the departmental proceeding the guilty can be held on preponderance of probability and the petitioner cannot claim that since he has been acquitted from the criminal charges, he cannot be punished in departmental proceeding. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director VSP and Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, 2008(5)SCC 569 and Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2011(9)SCC 94 the learned Single Judge comes into conclusion that the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority have passed the order of punishment which cannot be said to be either erroneous or excessive under the facts and circumstances of the case. The orders passed by the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority is well reasoned order and no illegality was committed by them. 8 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court. 5 9 Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder