Patna, Feb. 6: The Patna bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has set aside the showcause notice served by the state government on an Indian Forest Service officer in a case related to the exercise of his quasi-judicial powers. The official, B.P. Sinha, is the conservator (forest), Patna circle.

The order of the CAT bench, which comprised administrative member Sudhir Kumar and judicial member justice Anwar Ahmad, reads: “There is a need to protect the quasi judicial authorities and the entire system of administrative adjudication from falling into disrepute, where it would fall if the officers performing quasi judicial functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour, by subjecting them to constant threat of disciplinary proceedings.”

The concluding sentence of the order reads: “The impugned showcause notice dated July 14, 2010, is obnoxious and bad in law.”

Giving details of the case, Sinha told The Telegraph there was a dispute between Kalwant Singh and Rajendra Singh over a saw mill. The matter was referred to him after Kalwant Singh challenged the order of the then divisional forest officer (DFO) of Patna, who also happened to be the licensing authority for saw mill, after the DFO passed an order in favour of Rajendra Singh. Sinha heard the matter in August 2009 and ordered a stay on the DFO’s order. He fixed September 15, 2009 as the next date of hearing of the case.

The conservator said durin the hearing that the counsel of Rajendra Singh was putting pressure on him for vacating the stay order.

Sinha then adjourned the matter in order to prevent a law and order situation and fixed a new date for hearing the case. The conservator also wrote a letter to the district administration requesting for security for his conducting business in the court. In the meantime, Rajendra Singh had also filed a petition in Patna High Court and the court heard the matter on October 15, 2009.

The court passed an order and said the conservator of forest should proceed with the hearing of the matter and the district administration and superior departmental authorities should grant him full protection so that he is able to discharge his duties and conduct hearing and pass final orders as early as possible.

When Sinha didn’t get the security cover till November 10, 2009 he recused himself from the case and directed the parties concerned to seek relief/remedy from a higher court.

While withdrawing himself from the case, Sinha allowed the interim order passed by him to continue.

Rajendra Singh once again moved the high court, which in order dated April 19, 2010 observed that as conservator of forest rescued himself then should not have passed any interim order. The court also observed it would be appropriate to direct the principal secretary of forest department to designate someone who is competent to decide the appeal on merits as the earliest as conservator of forest has rescued from the court.

The CAT’s order reads that the Bihar government totally disregarded the directive of high court given in its first order in which it was directed that the conservator of forest should be provided protection either by the district administration or by the superior departmental authorities. “The disobedience on the part of the state of Bihar is quite disturbing and inappropriate,” says the order.

It also says that the second order of the court to designate some other officer to hear the matter on merit and decide the same expeditiously was implemented with alacrity.