Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Indian Forest Service officer allotted to Karnataka, was selected and appointed in 1986 and rose to the cadre of Chief Conservator of Forest, working on deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited. While serving as Deputy Conservator of Forest in Sagar, allegations were made against him regarding tree cutting and making payments. The first respondent passed an order on 17.4.2012 directing recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 from the petitioner, followed by a consequential order on 28.5.2012. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the orders and consequential benefits. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the recovery was justified based on the allegations. The court examined the records and found that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The court held that the orders were passed in gross violation of natural justice and could not be sustained. The court quashed the orders dated 17.4.2012 and 28.5.2012 and directed the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, afford him an opportunity of hearing, and then pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Recovery of Amount - The impugned orders directing recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 from the petitioner were passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. Held that such orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. (Paras 4-6) B) Forest Law - Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Recovery of Loss - The respondents sought to recover alleged loss caused by the petitioner in tree cutting and payment matters. However, no prior notice or inquiry was conducted before fixing liability. Held that recovery without hearing is arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders dated 17.4.2012 and 28.5.2012 directing recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 from the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.4.2012 and 28.5.2012 are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, afford him an opportunity of hearing, and then pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Recovery of Government Dues
- Show Cause Notice
- Karnataka Forest Act
- 1963
