M. Vani v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not considering the representation of the Petitionet dl. 25.02.2023 and not-initialing to promote the Petitioner to the cadre of Forest Range Officer from the Deputy Range Officer Cadre during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, as per the dicta laid down in the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs Chamanlal Goyalfor the panel year 2025 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia and also violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to promote the Petitioner to cadre of Forest Range Officer from the Deputy Range Officer cadre for the panel year 2025 by considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 25.O2.2025 as per the Enquiry Officer being disciplinary authority had conducted the inquiry and concluded that charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved IANO:1OF2 02s Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to promote the petitioner lo cadre of Forest Range officer from the cadre of Deputy Range officer for the paner year 2o2s by consiJering the representation of the Petitioner dated 25.02.2025, pending disposal of thJ writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G RAVINDAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER 7 (-) 1 THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.11768 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Forest Section Officer in the Forest Department in 2OO4 and promoted as Deputy Range Ofhcer in 2012, rendering service to the satisfaction of her superiors. A charge under Rule 20 of the TS Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 was framed against her by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Adilabad Circle, vide RC No 587412017-M1(11), dated 04.05.2018, for gross neglect of duty resulting in a deviation of 0.21 hectares in plantation area due to lack of superrrision. The Conservator of Forests, Adilabad conducted arr inquiry and concluded the charges were not proved. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Basara Circle, Nirmal, the disciplinary authority, also found the charges not proved ald directed the petitioner to submit a further defense statement vide RC No. 5a74/2017-Ml dated 19.04.2025, which she submitted on 19.03.2025 in continuation of her initial statement dated 06.03.2019. She asserted that she carried out advance operations in 5 hectares of Eucalyptus plantation in VSS Jandavenkatapur 2 (2008-09) of Adilpet beat, Narwaipet Section, Bellampally Rarrge, during February-March 2009, which were test- checked and verihed as correct by the then Forest Range Officer on 07.03.2009 and 04-O4.2OO9 The deviation alleged by the Vigilance & Enforcement [V&E) Party, Karimnagar, was denied by the petitioner u'ith supporting MB pages 82-86. She stated that plantation works were J' done by her in 2OO9-10 arrd not her successor, Tirupathi, and all works-ploughing, pit digging, planting, .Sri etc- were duly verified by Forest Range Officet (O2'O7'2OO9, t7.O7.2OOg\, ACF (17.07.2009, 28.08.2009), and DFO (05.08.2009, l2.Og.2OO9l, with their signatures in the MBs affirming correctness. She contended she had completed planting operations before being tr:alsferred ald hence was not responsible for survival percentage monitoring' Though the V&E party alleged that she admitted being inexperienced with GPS, she refuted any deviation, stating all works were as per estimates and test-checked' At the oral enquiry on 07.03.2019, she reiterated these facts, detailing 5555 plants planted before her transfer' The Inquiry Authority concluded that though a deviation of 0'21 J ha was alleged, no GPS evidence or maps supported this, and verification relied only on MBs from MGNREGS maintenance, whereas initial works were done under XI Finance Commission. Thus, the charge lacked proper evidence. The Authority noted no deviation was found during test checks, and the survival rate allegation was unverified. Asserting that she did not violate Sec. 156 of the Forest Department Code, the petitioner requested exoneration, stating she was unjustly denied promotion from 2019-2O onwards due to pending disciplinary proceedings. Her representation dated 06.Ol .2021 for promotion to Forest Range Officer in Zone-V (panel year 2O2l) was rejected via RC No. 11409/20220-EEl dated O5.O2.2O21, citing the pending charge sheet despite her qualifying through Forest Law, Office Procedure, and Accounts tests. Findings submitted via PC No. 587412017 /M1(ii) dated 10.03.2019 declared the charge not proved, but the case remained pending for finalization with findings awaited on other officers. The DPC on l2.Ol.2o2l considered her case under G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 1O.06. 1999 and G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 31.09. 1991, but 4 deferred her promotion, while recommending Smt. L. Getha Rani, her junior, in the panel year 2021. Following W.P. No. 2024 of 2021, interim orders dated 08.03.2021 from the Honble High Court directed that disciplinary- proceedings initiated on 04.05.2018 based on 2008-09 events were not concluded despite the Enquiry Oflicer's March 2019 report holding charges not proved. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Stale of Punjab us. Chamanlal Goyal, the Court directed consideration of her promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner noted similar reliefs granted in W.P. No.25642 of 2Ol7 (dated 02.08.2017) and W.P. No.19518 of 2Ot7 (dated

11.10.2017), claiming parity and entitlement to the same relief in view of the unsubstantiated charges and procedural delay affecting her promotional prospects. 2. Heard Mr. G. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Forests. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner's essential grievance is the deniat of promotion to the post of Forest Ralge Officer despite the disciplinary charges against her being held not proved. -t'* - 5 Aggrieved by the continued deferment of her promotion, based on pending proceedings, she is stated to have made a representation dated 25.02.2025 to 2"d respondent- Principal Chief Conservator of Forests requesting to consider her for promotion, without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings.

4. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2'd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 25.02.2025 in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stald closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, M/ BSR '1 . The Principal Chief Secretary Environment, Fores 2. The Principal Chief Conservation of Forests and Head of the Forest Force, Department, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secreta nat, Hyderabad Science and Technology State of Telangana.

3. The Vigilance Commissioner, State of Telangana. 4. The Chief Conservator and Forest, Basara Circle, Basara, Nirmal. 5. The District Forest Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District. 6. One CC to SRl. G RAVINDAR Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS ,High Court for the State of Telangana.

8. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:2410412025 t1 TS r 'J o o 2B i4l\l ?r25 t D a.f i i I ORDER WP.No.11768 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ n1 V$ E €