CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.09.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.4998 OF 2007(O.A.NO.5563 OF 2002)R.M.Manohar Daniel .. PetitionerVs.1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem .. RespondentsThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarito call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(3D)No.2, Environment and Forest Department, dated 03.01.2002 and toquash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.RaviFor Respondents : Mr.K.Rajasekar, GA(F)ORDERHeard both sides.2.This writ petition arose out of O.A.No.5563 of 2002 filed bythe petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In viewof the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this courtand was renumbered as W.P.No.4998 of 2007. 3.The petitioner sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarito call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(3D)No.2, Environment and Forest Department, dated 03.01.2002 and toquash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The petitioner, who was working as a Forest Ranger, challengedthe order of punishment issued by G.O.(3D)No.2, Environment andForest Department, dated 3.1.2002. By the said order, a recovery fromthe petitioner's DCRG to the extent of Rs.10000/- was ordered andalso to stop his drawing of full pension for 6 months. Thepetitioner's date of superannuation was 31.8.97 while he was workingas Forest Range Officer which also includes as a double lock officerin the sandalwood depot at Salem. It was reported that while he was atrainee ranger at Sevarai North range, he took the Hero Honda Motorcycle with registration No.TCE 4449 which was confiscated inconnection with a sandalwood offence and failed to return the same.Therefore, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) was issued on 31.12.96. Thesaid charge memo resulted in an enquiry conducted by DivisionalAssistant Conservator of Forest. An enquiry was conducted on 10.4.97.The enquiry officer gave his report dated 15.5.97 holding that thecharges were proved.5.The petitioner gave a representation, stating that it was aone sided report and no proper enquiry was conducted and therefore,demanded a fresh enquiry to be conducted. Thereafter, the secondrespondent himself conducted a fresh enquiry and recorded thestatements from the witnesses and found the petitioner was guilty ofthe charges. The Government upon the receipt of the report invitedthe opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The TNPSCrecommended appropriate punishment by recovery of the amounts fromthe DCRG and also an imposition of penalty. 6.On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed areply affidavit, dated 19.2.2003, justifying the penalty. Thepetitioner took this court through the minutes of the enquiryproceedings. However, once an enquiry is conducted properly, thejudicial review over such an enquiry is very limited as held by theSupreme Court in Praveen Batya Vs. Union of India reported in 2009(4) SCC 225. The Supreme Court has also further held that unless thepunishment is shockingly disproportionate it cannot be interferedwith and the judicial review over the penalty is extremely limitedvide its judgment in 2008 (7) SCC 580 (State of Meghalaya v. MeckenSingh N. Marak).7.Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court to theeffect that a well reasoned order of the departmental authoritycannot be interfered with on the basis of sympathy or sentiment. Whenonce procedural formalities are complied with by the authorities, thecourts ordinarily should not disturb the penalty vide its judgment in2008 5 SCC 569 (V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu).8.However, the petitioner had raised in paragraph 15 that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the recovery from the DCRG and withholding of pension for six monthswould amount to double jeopardy and hit by Article 20 of theConstitution. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC v. N.Ramulu, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 319. The following passage found inparagraph 3 of the said judgment may be extracted below:"3. We think that the entire approach ofthe Division Bench of the High Court is incorrect.The driver had caused pecuniary loss to theappellant and that was estimated to be Rs.500. Itwas this pecuniary loss which was ordered to berecovered from the delinquent. In addition to that,the delinquent was punished for misconduct and it isthat punishment with which the Labour Courtinterfered and so also did the learned Judge of theHigh Court. The learned Single Judge came to theconclusion that 50 per cent of back wages should berefunded to the delinquent besides reinstatement.Against that order both the delinquent and themanagement went up in appeal. The High Courtmodified the order of the learned Single Judge anddirected payment of full back wages. In other words,the only order that survived was the reimbursementof the loss occasioned to the appellant on accountof the act of the delinquent driver. It is true thatthat has been shown to be a penalty under Regulation8(v) of the Regulations. But the penalty for the actof negligence was removal from service. Theexplanation to Regulation 8, however, enumeratesvarious penalties which are not to be treated aspenalties and one of them is as clause (5) thereofsays: “The penalty of recovery from pay of the wholeor part of any pecuniary loss caused to theCorporation by an employee’s negligence or breach oforders, may be imposed in addition to any otherpenalty which may be inflicted in respect of thesame act of negligence or breach of orders.” Thisclause clearly says that the penalty of recoveringloss caused to the management under Regulation (1)(v) shall not preclude the management from imposingany other penalty. The High Court was, therefore,wrong in thinking that this was a case of doublejeopardy. We think that the order passed by thelearned Single Judge was eminently just and fair andthe Division Bench of the High Court should not haveinterfered with that order.9.Therefore, in the light of the above, the contentions raised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, thewrit petition stands dismissed. No costs.vvkSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Forest Officer, Salem Division, Salem+ 1 CC to Mr.Ravi Advocate SR.49776.+ 1 CC to Spl. Government Pleader( Forest) SR.49539 PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.NO.4998 OF 2007KVI(CO)VC(09.10.2009)