K.Sankaralingam v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.08.2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.5699 of 2007K.Sankaralingam... PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to Government Environment & Forests Department (FRGA), Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Building, Chennai – 15. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.577 of 2002from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer tocall for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.(3D)No.85, Environment and Forests (FR9A) Department, dated 28.11.2001and quash the same and direct the respondents to give allconsequential benefits withheld because of the proceedings leading tothe above order of stoppage of increment for 3 months withoutcumulative effect. For Petitioner:Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.S.Kribanandan Special Government Pleader (Forests) O R D E RThe Original Application in O.A.No.577 of 2002 before theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is now writ petition inW.P.No.5699 of 2007 before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Ravi, learned counselfor the petitioner and Mr.S.Kribanandan, learned Special GovernmentPleader (Forests) for the respondents. 3.The petitioner was directly recruited as Ranger in theForest Department and he joined service on 01.11.1967. He waspromoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on20.09.1990. 4.While he was serving as a Assistant Conservator ofForests in Theni Division, his name was not included in the panelsfor promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests for theyears 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 i.e. inG.O.Ms.No.8, E & F, dated 13.01.1999 for the years 1997-1998 and1998-1999, 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 theaforesaid panels was due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedingsagainst him initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu CivilServices (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by issuing charge sheet dated08.05.1998.6.Two charges were framed in the charge sheet. The firstcharge relates to the preparation of Mahazars by the Forest RangerThiru.S.V.Rajalinga Raja. The crux of the allegation in the firstcharge is that one Mahazar was prepared relating to the seizure of 93Teakwood logs from a bullock cart without mentioning the name of thedriver of the bullock cart, while the second Mahazar contained thename of the driver of the bullock cart. The petitioner also singedin those Mahazars along with Forest Ranger. Signing two Mahazars, isthe allegations made in the first charge. 7.The second charge is also relating to signing twoMahazars relating to the seizure of Teakwood logs. According to oneMahazar, 211 logs were seized in the search made in the house of oneT.Jesudoss of T.Sinthalacheri Village and according to the secondMahazar, 220 logs were seized from the fields of Thiru.Jesudoss. TheMahazars were prepared by the Forest Ranger Mr.S.V.Rajalinga Raja andthe petitioner signed both the Mahazars. The allegation was thatactually, there was one seizure, but there was two Mahazars and theplace of recovery is also different i.e. one at residence as per oneMahazar and the other at the fields as per the second Mahazar. 8.As regards charge No.1, the petitioner submitted that oncoming to know the name of the Bullock Cart driver, the secondMahazar was prepared in good faith and to protect the interest of theDepartment, so as to record the name of the Bullock Cart driver. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.Regarding the charge No.2, the petitioner submittedexplanation stating that the Forest Ranger prepared the secondMahazar as if the seizure was made in the fields pursuant to thedirection issued by the District Forest Officer, the superiorauthority. It is stated that Thiru.Jesudoss seems to have requestedthe District Forest Officer to record as if the seizure took place inthe fields, instead of from his residence and the District ForestOfficer seems to have agreed to the same. While initially theseizure was 211 Teakwood logs, later it turned out to 220 logs andhence 220 was recorded in the second Mahazar. 10.The aforesaid explanation was accepted by the EnquiryOfficer, while recording the findings in his report dated 29.02.2000.While recording his findings, regarding charge Nos. 1 and 2,theEnquiry Officer has held as follows:Charge 1:"Thus, there is a second mahazar, said to besigned by the Accused Officer in O.R.No.452/90-91 ofCumbum range in good faith, in the interest of thedepartment; to bring out the actual offender, andtherefore, the charge of signing two mahazars isproved, based on records. Charge 2:During the course of enquiry, based ondepositions of the Prosecution witnesses and the thatof the accused officer it is revealed that in fact asecond mahazar was indeed prepared for O.R.No.456/90-91 charging the same of occurrence. It was gatheredthat this was done due to the undue influence exertedby the then District Forest Officer ThiruN.Santhagunam, as stated by Tvl.Rajalinga Raja andother accused officers. Notwithstanding this, thecharge of signing two mahazars with different scene ofoccurrences is proved."10.Though the Enquiry Officer accepted the explanationsoffered by the petitioner and recorded that the second mahazarmentioned in first charge was prepared in good faith and in theinterest of the Department to bring out the actual offender, oncoming to know the name of the bullock cart driver. Regarding thesecond charge, the Enquiry Officer recorded that the second mahazarwas prepared only due to the undue influence exerted by the DistrictForest Officer Thiru.N.Santhagunam. However, it is strange thatafter recording so, the Enquiry Officer held the charges were proved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(3D) No.85, Environment and Forests (FR9A) Department, dated28.11.2001, imposing the punishment of stoppage of next increment forthree months without cumulative effect. The said Government Orderwas issued based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated29.02.2000. But the first respondent failed to take into account theaforesaid findings that was recorded above in favour of thepetitioner. 12.Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order isliable to be set aside. That is, once if the explanation isaccepted, the Enquiry Officer ought to have held the charges were notproved. The Government also should have held the charges were notproved, in view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.But, without taking into account the aforesaid relevant facts, thefirst respondent issued the impugned Government Order mechanically,without applying its mind. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced adecision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 27.09.2007 inW.P.No.41202/2005 relating to a punishment imposed toMr.S.V.Rajalinga Raja, the Forest Ranger and the relevant portion ofthe same is extracted hereunder:"It is no doubt true that in the present casethe petitioner had prepared a false mahazar and thepetitioner also admits the same. But the factremains that it was prepared by him only on theinstructions of the District Forest Officer, who issuperior to the petitioner. From the materialsavailable on record, we hold that the said Rule wouldapply to the case on hand since preparation of afalse mahazar was not on his own volition but thesaid act was done by him on the instructions of hissuperior viz., the District Forest Officer. Inaddition to that, though the petitioner forwarded acopy of the false mahazar to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, yet, no action was takenagainst the District Forest Officer while he was inservice but on the other hand, the petitioner wasmade as a scapegoat. Therefore we are of the opinionthat the punishment imposed on the petitioner by G.O.(3D) No.85 dated 28.11.2001 cannot be legallysustained. Consequently, the order challenged inthis writ petition is set aside and the writ petitionis allowed. The respondents are directed to grantall service and monetary benefits to the petitionerwithin a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. There will be no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order as to costs."14.In these circumstances, the impugned order dated28.11.2001 of the first respondent is set aside and the writ petitionis allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all service andmonetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarTKTo1.The Secretary to Government Environment & Forests Department (FRGA), Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Building, Chennai – 15.+ 1 CC to M/s.M.Ravi,Advocate,SR.40403+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,(Forests)SR.40219W.P.No.5699 of 2007MDR(CO)EM/7.9.09