Facts
The applicants, a Forest Guard and a Watcher, were posted as Incharge of specific forest compartments in the Bhaderwah Division
Source reference: p. 4In 2019, illicit damage involving 36 deodar and kail trees was reported in their assigned areas
Source reference: p. 4Consequently, the applicants were placed under suspension on 13.09.2019
Source reference: p. 5They were served with charge-sheets on 17.02.2020 and 30.04.2020, to which they submitted replies
Source reference: p. 5, 7Following an inquiry, the respondents issued Order No. 8252-53/CFC dated 02.02.2021, which reinstated the applicants with a strict warning but ordered the recovery of Rs. 1,49,600/- from their salaries due to dereliction of duty
Source reference: p. 3, 7The applicants challenged this recovery and sought formal reinstatement with consequential benefits, alleging procedural lapses and violation of natural justice
Source reference: p. 3, 5Issues
1. Whether the recovery order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without conducting a proper inquiry.
Source reference: p. 5, 82. Whether the continued suspension of the applicants beyond three months invalidated the subsequent departmental action.
Source reference: p. 5, 93. Whether the punishment of recovery was disproportionate or issued with malafide intent.
Source reference: p. 5, 11Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the review of service matters
Source reference: p. 3, 4The principle of Judicial Review in departmental proceedings dictates that a Tribunal does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate factual evidence unless there is a patent procedural illegality, total absence of notice, or proven mala fides
Source reference: p. 8The court also applied the doctrine of "strict proof for malafides," requiring specific pleading and evidence rather than mere assertions
Source reference: p. 11Furthermore, it emphasized that the quantum of punishment is within the administration's discretion unless it "shocks the conscience" of the court
Source reference: p. 11Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicants' claim of "no inquiry" was contradicted by their own admission of receiving charge-sheets and filing replies
Source reference: p. 8Since the respondents followed the procedure of notifying allegations and considering replies, the Tribunal declined to re-evaluate the factual finding of negligence, noting that the applicants were responsible for the compartments where the loss occurred
Source reference: p. 8, 9The applicants’ defense regarding the need for police protection was deemed insufficient to exonerate them from their core duty of vigilance and prompt reporting
Source reference: p. 9Regarding the delay in inquiry and prolonged suspension, the Tribunal accepted the respondents' justification citing the constitutional changes in J&K and the COVID-19 pandemic, further noting that since reinstatement had already occurred, the suspension issue was academic and caused no actual prejudice
Source reference: p. 9, 10Finally, the Tribunal held that the recovery was a "lenient view" compared to dismissal, and the allegations of malafide against respondent No. 5 lacked evidentiary support
Source reference: p. 11, 12Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the departmental action was procedurally sound and the punishment was not disproportionate
The court concluded that the prayer for reinstatement was infructuous as it had already been granted by the impugned order
Source reference: p. 9, 12The recovery of Rs. 1,49,600/- and the strict warning were upheld as valid exercises of departmental control
Source reference: p. 12All interim directions were vacated, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 13Original Court PDF
Tariq HussainvsD/o Forests Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in