The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.LAKSHMI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESTTUIAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22564 of 2022 ORDER: Heard K. Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is filed questioning the G.O.Ms.No.9- ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCItrNCE & TECHNOLOGY (For.II) Depa-rtment, Dated 20-O2-2021 issued by the l.t respondent in deferring the petitioner's promotion as Deput5z Conservator of Forest from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, till termination of the Charges on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is presently working as Forest Divisional Ofhcer, Flying Squad Division, Hyderabad. The petitioner joined in the Forest Department as Forest Range Officer on 05.10.1992 and after completion of 18 years of service in the category of Forest Range Officer, he was considered for promotion to the post as Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) and completed I 1 years 2 of seru-icc in thc category of Assistalt Conservator of Forest in various n,ings of the department. The petitioner has put in an unblemished t:ontinuous record of service for a period of 29 years u,ithout )raving any adverse remarks. While stood thus, the petitioner s as issued with an article of charge through the G.O.Rt.No l19, EFS&T (FOR.III) Department, dated 27.O7.2O19 under Rulc 20 of APCs (CCA) Rules, 1991 farmed the following charges as follou,s: "'fhat he ullorued shifting of Sau Mill illegallg in his .jurisdicliorr rn uk;latktn of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Courl o.f Intlitt in W'P No.202 of 1995 ond failed lo impLement A.P. Satu Mill (Rt:qulotiort) Rules, 1969-Repectled bg Telan-clana Wood bastll Industies (Regulation) Rules, 2O16 pttblished utdc (i.().ills. Ir'o.55, DFS&T (FOR.I) Department, dt. 26.09.201t,

4. Learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that the petitioncr submitted his explanation by submitting defence statement through proper channel on 04.03.2020 by denying the said charge leveled against him. During the general transfers and postings. the petitioner was posted as Forest Divisional Officcr, Flying Squad Division, H1'derabad vide Pri.CCF (lioF[,') S.O.No.l35/2018/Admn-1, dated 15.06.2018 and accordinglr', he has taken over the charge on 22.06.2018 t I i , l I I Ij I After 24 days of petitioner joining as Forest Divisional Officer, Flying Squad, Hyderabad, a letter was received from the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad City-I regarding the unauthorized shifting and operation of the Saw Mill with name M/s. Maruthi Enterprises & Timber Depot, situated at Plot No.1-4-957/958, Bakaram, Musheerabad within the jurisdiction of Tarnaka Section, Hyderabad, East Range of Hyderabad Divrsron.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the District Forest Ofhcer, Hyderabad, had issued proceedings Vide. RC.No.3O03/Ol /514/S2-8, dated 15.03.2019 and accorded permission of the wood based industry M/s. Maruthi Enterprises & Timber Mart bearing License No.69 1 renewing validity up to 31-3-2022. Further, permission was aiso accorded to shift the saw mill from the old place to new place as requested by the Saw Mill owner. Due to the transfers and postings in the month of June 20 1 B, entire old staff was transferred including the Forest Divisiona-l Oflicer, Flying Squad Division, Hyderabad, (who was joined on 22.06.2018) and with a minimal staff the Flying Squad Division is running at that 4 ::.I time i.e., u,ith one Forest Range Officer and One Forest Beat t Officer who was joined on 11.O7.2OlB

6. l,earned counsel lbr the petitioner further submits that the jurisdiction of the Flying Squad Hyderabad is having a vast jurisdiction spread over in three Districts nameh, Hyderabad, Medchal Malkajgin and Yadadri Bhongir District. Due to the shortage of executive st aff, the party is managing a very sketchy staff headed bv the Forest Divisional Officer. Being the quality control and Vigilancc Party, the petitioner had to undertake multifarious importar-rt tasks; like inspection of ongoing lr,orks in ali the above three Districts. While doing so, lhe petitioner was issued :rnother article of charge vide proceedings Rc.No.8586/2O20lD&A-1(vi), dated 3L.lO.2O2O by the respondent No.2 as follows: " Exhibited qross negligence of dutg and failed to detect the operation of litur Sau., Mills ntnning illegallg it his ntrisdiction h uiolation 1o the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of htdict and TeLagnana Wood Based Industies (Regulation s) Rules, 20 I 6" Against the sald charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation bl submitting defence statement through proper channel bl- der-rr,ing the said charge. For whicl-r, enquiry u,as I I 5 completed and enquiry report submitted to respondent No.2 by the Enquiry Officer on 2O.O2.2O22 concluded with NOT PROVED. 7 . Again another article of charge was issued against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1OO ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (For. II) Department, dated O1-09- 2O2l by the 1.t respondent as follows: "That he alloLued operation of ilLegal saut mill in his jurisdiction uiolating the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP No.202/ 95 ond failed to tmplement the Telagnana Wood Based Industies (Regtlations) Rules, 2O16 G.O.Ms No. 55, EFS&(For.I) Dept, Dt 26.09.2016." Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his explanation by submitting defence statement through proper channel by denying the said charge leveled against him.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner submitted his explanations to the above said charges, till date, the respondents have neither appointed any Enquiry Officer nor condlrcted any enquiry into the said charges framed against him by giving an opportunity to prove his innocence regarding the said charges even aJter lapse of two yeaJS 6

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one S. Satvanar;rvana. u,ho was junior to the petitioner, was promoted as l)()put]' Conservator of Forests for the yeat 2O2O- 21 from the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the D.P.C. meeting held on 29.01 .2021, bttt the petitioner's name was deferrcd till the termination of charges vide G.O.Ms.No.O9, Environment, F orests. Sciences & Technoiogu (For.ll) Department, datcd 20.02.2027 and the same was issued b1, the I "t re spondent.

10. Learned <:oun sel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is furllv qualihed for the post of Deputy Conservator o1' Forests as he has been working as Asst. Conservator ol' Forests and legitimately expecting for promotion to the said post. In this context, the respondent Government has issued det ailcd guidelines for effecting promotion to the employees who are facing disciplinary cases. Even in the impugned order dated 2O-O2 2O2l , earlier, petitioner's case was rejected on thc ground of pending of two articles of charges. Because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings years together, the petitioner's promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of I ,i I I l l t 7 Forests is stopped, as such, the petitioner is being put to irreparable loss, hardship and mental agony. 1 1. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the petitioner submitted a representation dated

13.02.2025 to the respondent No.2 for consideration of his promotion and to take initiation for early closure of AOC files.

12. With the consent of both the counsels, without going into the merits of the case, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.O2.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Environment Forest, Science aq Technology' (For.lll) Deiartment, Seiretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (HOFF), State of Telangana' Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI K.LAKSHMI IvIANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I ) To,

5. Two CD CoPies BS w BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 0310312025 ORDER WP.No.22564 of 2022 1 yrE STaT (' c 13 ilAn 2ffi5 I 'P :i t) ,} t * -.-;'. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS b led [] l i I I I I I i I I I I I I i i t l I I ! : i ! ! I