The Original Application in O.A.No.577 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is now writ petition in W.P.No.5699 of 2007 before this Court.
2.Heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kribanandan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for the respondents.
3.The petitioner was directly recruited as Ranger in the Forest Department and he joined service on 01.11.1967. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on 20.09.1990.
4.While he was serving as a Assistant Conservator of Forests in Theni Division, his name was not included in the panels for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests for the years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 i.e. in G.O.Ms.No.8, E & F, dated 13.01.1999 for the years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, in G.O.Ms.No.191, E&F, dated 03.09.1999 for the year 1999-2000 and in G.O.Ms.No.132, E&F, dated 20.06.2000 for the year 2000-2001.
5.The non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the aforesaid panels was due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by issuing charge sheet dated 08.05.1998.
6.Two charges were framed in the charge sheet. The first charge relates to the preparation of Mahazars by the Forest Ranger Thiru.S.V.Rajalinga Raja. The crux of the allegation in the first charge is that one Mahazar was prepared relating to the seizure of 93 Teakwood logs from a bullock cart without mentioning the name of the driver of the bullock cart, while the second Mahazar contained the name of the driver of the bullock cart. The petitioner also singed in those Mahazars along with Forest Ranger. Signing two Mahazars, is the allegations made in the first charge.
7.The second charge is also relating to signing two Mahazars relating to the seizure of Teakwood logs. According to one Mahazar, 211 logs were seized in the search made in the house of one T.Jesudoss of T.Sinthalacheri Village and according to the second Mahazar, 220 logs were seized from the fields of Thiru.Jesudoss. The Mahazars were prepared by the Forest Ranger Mr.S.V.Rajalinga Raja and the petitioner signed both the Mahazars. The allegation was that actually, there was one seizure, but there was two Mahazars and the place of recovery is also different i.e. one at residence as per one Mahazar and the other at the fields as per the second Mahazar.
8.As regards charge No.1, the petitioner submitted that on coming to know the name of the Bullock Cart driver, the second Mahazar was prepared in good faith and to protect the interest of the Department, so as to record the name of the Bullock Cart driver.
9.Regarding the charge No.2, the petitioner submitted explanation stating that the Forest Ranger prepared the second Mahazar as if the seizure was made in the fields pursuant to the direction issued by the District Forest Officer, the superior authority. It is stated that Thiru.Jesudoss seems to have requested the District Forest Officer to record as if the seizure took place in the fields, instead of from his residence and the District Forest Officer seems to have agreed to the same. While initially the seizure was 211 Teakwood logs, later it turned out to 220 logs and hence 220 was recorded in the second Mahazar.
10.The aforesaid explanation was accepted by the Enquiry Officer, while recording the findings in his report dated 29.02.2000. While recording his findings, regarding charge Nos. 1 and 2,the Enquiry Officer has held as follows:
Charge 1:
"Thus, there is a second mahazar, said to be signed by the Accused Officer in O.R.No.452/90-91 of Cumbum range in good faith, in the interest of the department; to bring out the actual offender, and therefore, the charge of signing two mahazars is proved, based on records.
Charge 2:
During the course of enquiry, based on depositions of the Prosecution witnesses and the that of the accused officer it is revealed that in fact a second mahazar was indeed prepared for O.R.No.456/90-91 charging the same of occurrence. It was gathered that this was done due to the undue influence exerted by the then District Forest Officer Thiru N.Santhagunam, as stated by Tvl.Rajalinga Raja and other accused officers. Notwithstanding this, the charge of signing two mahazars with different scene of occurrences is proved."
10.Though the Enquiry Officer accepted the explanations offered by the petitioner and recorded that the second mahazar mentioned in first charge was prepared in good faith and in the interest of the Department to bring out the actual offender, on coming to know the name of the bullock cart driver. Regarding the second charge, the Enquiry Officer recorded that the second mahazar was prepared only due to the undue influence exerted by the District Forest Officer Thiru.N.Santhagunam. However, it is strange that after recording so, the Enquiry Officer held the charges were proved.
11.The first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(3D) No.85, Environment and Forests (FR9A) Department, dated 28.11.2001, imposing the punishment of stoppage of next increment for three months without cumulative effect. The said Government Order was issued based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 29.02.2000. But the first respondent failed to take into account the aforesaid findings that was recorded above in favour of the petitioner.
12.Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. That is, once if the explanation is accepted, the Enquiry Officer ought to have held the charges were not proved. The Government also should have held the charges were not proved, in view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. But, without taking into account the aforesaid relevant facts, the first respondent issued the impugned Government Order mechanically, without applying its mind.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 27.09.2007 in W.P.No.41202/2005 relating to a punishment imposed to Mr.S.V.Rajalinga Raja, the Forest Ranger and the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:
"It is no doubt true that in the present case the petitioner had prepared a false mahazar and the petitioner also admits the same. But the fact remains that it was prepared by him only on the instructions of the District Forest Officer, who is superior to the petitioner. From the materials available on record, we hold that the said Rule would apply to the case on hand since preparation of a false mahazar was not on his own volition but the said act was done by him on the instructions of his superior viz., the District Forest Officer. In addition to that, though the petitioner forwarded a copy of the false mahazar to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, yet, no action was taken against the District Forest Officer while he was in service but on the other hand, the petitioner was made as a scapegoat. Therefore we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by G.O.(3D) No.85 dated 28.11.2001 cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, the order challenged in this writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs."
14.In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.11.2001 of the first respondent is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
20.08.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK To
1.The Secretary to Government Environment & Forests Department (FRGA), Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Building, Chennai 15.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK W.P.No.5699 of 2007 20.08.2009