Government of Tamil Nadu v. Ruchen S. Barua

O R D E R D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.The writ petition is to quash the order dated 24.01.2008passed in O.A.No.850 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,shortly the Tribunal, the second respondent herein. The Government ofTamil Nadu and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(hereinafter referred as the “PCCF”) are the writ petitioners. 2.The first respondent herein was directly recruited to theIndian Forest Service and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre in 1977.He has rendered 32 years of service. While so, the firstpetitioner issued a charge sheet in Letter No.33392/FR.Spl.A/97-2dated 16.04.1998 against the first respondent for the allegedmisconduct committed during his service as Conservator of Forest,Social Forestry Monitoring Circle, Chennai from 04.02.1992 to18.06.1996. The charge sheet was based on the audit report and thereports dated 12.06.1997, 04.07.1997 and 22.07.1997 of the ChiefConservator of Forests (Research), Chennai. 3.Three charges were made and those charges are as follows:-"CHARGE-I That you ( Thiru) R.S. Barua,IFS., whileworking as the Conservator of Forests, SocialForestry Monitoring, Office of the Chief Conservatorof Forests (Social Forestry), Chennai–15 from 4-2-92to 18-6-96 have purchased various materials and alsocarried out various works in the Vana Vigyan Kendrasunder the SIDA aided Tamil Nadu Social ForestryProject during the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 throughCo-operatives societies. While placing orders tothose societies you have failed to assess theircredibility and to adopt the normal official routineslike calling for tenders and quotations. The ratesquoted by the Societies were approved by you at facevalue and the Societies have adopted rates which aretwo or more times more than the real rates of theproducts and the products supplied by them are pre-dominantly found to be sub-standard. Thus you havefailed to prevent the loss of Government funds andthereby contravened the provisions of rule 3(1) ofthe All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1968.CHARGE-II That you (Thiru) R.S.Barua, IFS., while workingas the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Monitoring, Office of the Chief Conservator ofForests (Social Forestry), Chennai-35 from 4-2-92 to18-6-96 have sanctioned a total sum ofRs.2,70,75,683/- (Rupees Two Crores seventy lakhsseventy five thousand six hundred and eighty threeonly) to various Societies towards carrying outcertain works and for supply of materials to VanaVigyan Kendras, under the SIDA aided Tamil NaduSocial Forestry Project during the year 1993-94 and1994-95. You have sanctioned payments to thoseSocieties and the Societies supplied sub-standardgoods and in certain cases supply was effected partlyand also the works executed by them are found to besub-standard. The value of discrepancy by this waywas assessed to Rs.73,87,923/-. Thus you have failedto prevent the loss to the Government therebycontravened the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the AllIndia Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.CHARGE-III That you (Thiru) R.S.Barua, IFS., while workingas the Conservator of Forests, Social ForestryMonitoring, Office of the Chief Conservator ofForests (Social Forestry), from 4-2-92 to 18-6-96have purchased various stores and articles and alsocarried out various works in the Vana Vigyan Kendras.The records were not properly maintained by you inyour office and as result of which the value of the109 works amounting to Rs.1,55,85,527/- could not beassessed in the absence of the appropriate records.Thus you have failed to take proper care to haveproper records for the expenditure from theGovernment funds, thereby contravened the provisionsof Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct)Rules, 1968". 4. The crux of the charges is that he effected purchasesfrom the Societies without following the procedure and sanctionedpayments to the Societies which supplied sub-standard goods andexecuted sub-standard works and also he failed to maintain therecords relating to the works executed, resulting in huge loss to theGovernment.5.Based on the charge sheet, an enquiry was held. TheEnquiry Authority submitted its report dated 13.10.2000. In theenquiry report, the Inquiry Authority held that all the three chargeswere partly proved. Those findings alone are extracted here-under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "At the end of the discussion on Article I ofthe charge sheet the enquiry officer has concluded:"An over all assessment of article 1 to 5 ofthe charge no:- From the assessment of the charge,defence of the accused officer, and available records Iam of the opinion that(i) There were procedural flaws in generaland in specific in case of allotment of the worksupply of neem cakes to M/s. Ravi Agro Service tothe tune of Rs.2,44,000. However, no financialloss to Government is evident as the quantity ofthe neem cake for which payment has been madebrought to account".The second Article of charge relates to short supply byco-operative societies as well as supply of sub-standard articles leading to loss of Rs.73,87,925. Theenquiry officer's conclusion on this charge is asfollows:"Overall assessment of the evidences providedreveals that the lapses have occurred to the tuneof Rs.73,09,910/- for which theRangers/ACF/Societies have been made responsibleby the Chief Conservator of Forests (Research).The accused officer is not found directlyresponsible. However is partly responsible fornot check measuring 10% of the works in time soas to detect the defects, if any and take timelyaction against the concerned, thereby the chargesare partly proved".The third Article of charge relates to non-maintenanceof proper records. The enquiry officer's finding onthis charge is as follows:"The committee's report indicates the variousworks carried out, completed, partly completed ornot completed, stock accounted/not accounted etc.It does not indicate that proper reords aremaintained by them. However for the lapses theRangers/ACF/Society should be made responsibleprimarily. He has stated that there was no AG's Auditobjection on these points. This does not comeunder the purview of enquiry officer. However, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this can not be an excuse for not maintaining thefiles or records properly.An over all assessment of the charge revealsthat the accused officer is partly responsible andthe charge partly proved."6.The Disciplinary Authority communicated the said enquiryreport to the first respondent vide Lr.No.2038/FR.Spl.A/2000-10 dated27.11.2000 and sought his views on the same. 7.The first respondent submitted his representation dated14.03.2001 on the enquiry report and requested to drop the charges.The first respondent pointed out that in the enquiry neitherwitnesses were examined nor documents were marked on behalf of theDepartment. He pleaded to drop the charges on the ground that therewas no evidence to prove the charge. He also pointed out that insimilar cases, the actions taken against the officers were droppedand he gave those instances. 8.In view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings,his name was not included in the panel for promotion to the post ofChief Conservator of Forests. Therefore, he approached the Tribunaland the promotion panel was set aside. The private respondentsapproached this Court by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.16796 to16798 of 1998 etc., batch cases. Those writ petitions were disposedby a Division Bench of this Court on 11.10.1999 directing theGovernment to include the name of the first respondent in thepromotion panel. Accordingly, he was promoted as Chief Conservatorof Forests with effect from 12.12.1997.9.Again he was sought to be overlooked for promotion to thepost of PCCF. Hence, he filed Original Application in O.A.No.540 of2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order dated15.09.2004 to consider the case of the first respondent for promotionsubject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter,based on the said order, he was promoted as Additional PrincipalChief Conservator of Forests. The relevant passage from the saidorder is extracted here-under:"6.It is seen from the Chronology of events asnarrated in the Original Application that the allegedacts of misconduct relate to the period 1993 and evenafter a lapse of eleven years, the disciplinary casehas not been finalized. Eleven yers is certainly along period in the career of an officer to wait forthe outcome of any Disciplinary Proceedings, which inturn also hampers his promotional prospects.Precisely, for these reasons, the Hon'ble Supreme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court in the case of Chamanlal Goyal and in the caseof N.Radhakrishnan 1998 (4) SCC 154 had held thatundue delay in finalizing Disciplinary Proceedingsshould not be allowed to happen; more so, when itaffects the promotional prospects of employees.Applying the ration of those two judgments referred toabove and in view of the fact that the Applicant'sjunior had already been given the benefit ofconsideration for promotion as per the direction in OANo.56/2006 dated 4.7.2003. We hold the view that theApplicant succeeds and the Original Applicationdeserves to be allowed. Accordingly the respondentsare directed to consider the case of the applicant forpromotion to the post of Additional Principal ChiefConservator of Forests, which promotion if and whengiven will be subject to the outcome of theDisciplinary Proceedings. This exercise shall becompleted within a period of eight weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. OriginalApplication is allowed to the extent indicated above.No costs".10.In the said circumstances, the first respondent filedanother Original Application in O.A.No.850 of 2006 to quash thecharge sheet dated 16.04.1998 issued by the first petitioner. Hismain ground of attack was the delay in keeping the disciplinaryproceedings pending for eight years i.e. from the year 1998 to 2006and the delay caused prejudice to him as he was forced to approachthe Court of law twice seeking promotion. His complaint was thatinspite of the aforesaid observation by the Tribunal based on thejudgment of the Apex Court, the writ petitioners failed to finalisethe disciplinary proceedings even after five years of hisrepresentation on the enquiry report. 11.The Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.850 of 2006 on 24.01.2008mainly on the ground that the Department was not able to provide anyconvincing explanation for not finalizing the enquiry proceedingseven after five years from the date of receipt of the representationof the first respondent on the enquiry report. The Tribunal furtherheld that the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinaryproceedings inspite of its earlier order in O.A.No.540 of 2004 basedon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154,pointing out the undue delay in finalizing disciplinary proceedingsshould not be allowed to happen is bad. The Tribunal heavily reliedon the decision of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadean Vs. Tamil NaduHousing Board reported in 2005(4) CTC 403 and also the judgments ofthis Court in M.Elangovan Vs. Trichy Dist. Central Cooperative BankLtd., reported in 2006 (2) CTC 635 and in Government of Tamil NaduVs. S.Ramasamy made in W.A.No.1111 of 2007 that the inordinate delay https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings would vitiate theentire proceedings. This Writ petition is against the said order inO.A.No.850/06.12.The learned Special Government Pleader strenuously arguedthat the Tribunal erred in interfering with the charge sheet on theground of delay in not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings. Hefurther argued that from the year 2001 to 2006, i.e. for five years,the writ petitioners did not sleep over the matter and there were lotof deliberations took place within the Department on the disciplinaryproceedings. He sought to explain away the delay in such a fashion.He argued that a further letter dated 21.11.2006 in continuation ofits earlier letter dated 27.11.2000 was issued by the DisciplinaryAuthority, the first writ petitioner, to the first respondent seekinghis view thereon. In the said letter, the first respondent was heldto be responsible for the loss of Rs.9,88,780/- caused to theGovernment.13.For the said purpose, he produced two files namely, NoteFile that contains page Nos. 1 to 219 and Current File that containspage Nos. 1 to 319 in C.No.2038/FR.Spl.A/2000 for our perusal.14.While we perused the files circulated to us, we come tothe conclusion that the order of the Tribunal has to be sustained onother reasons also, which are given below.15.Based on the explanation dated 14.03.2001 submitted bythe first respondent on the enquiry report, the file was put up fororders before the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Secretary toGovernment, Environment and Forests Department. 16.The Secretary to Government, Environment and ForestsDepartment has passed the following orders on 14.05.2001 which isfound at page Nos.14 and 15 of the Note File:“In this case, serious irregularities,malpractices and misuse of funds, have been broughtto light, whereas the charges framed against the AOdo not indict him on specific instances of financialimproprieties and irregularities. The charges arerather general in nature. The availability of the materials purchased, thecost of the materials, the need for taking up certaincivil works, proper extension of such works andfinancial implications item wise have not been dealtwith by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report issuperfluous and has not delved into each and everyitem of expenditure. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It may not be proper to proceed against the A.O.with this perfunctory report and inadequacies.Please examine whether specific addl. Charges againsteach item of lapse can be framed or whether thematter can be referred to DV & AC for a detailedenquiry before taking final decision. In thisconnection the decision of the Supreme Court inK.R.Deb Vs. Collector Central Exercise may be bornein mind.”17.It seems that there was a change of Secretary to theconcerned Department. The new Secretary of the Department has passedthe following order dated 13.12.2001 which is found at page No.18 ofthe Note File:“Why is this file put up to me now”.18.The Note File reveals that the Note File was put up fororders after discussion with the new Secretary. 19.The following order was passed on 13.08.2002 by the newSecretary which is found at page Nos. 21 and 22 of the Note File. “The issues raised by the Secy. earlier havenot been answered in full as the current charges donot reflect the nature of the offence as no specificinstance has been brought out clearly. Pl. examinewhether any clear charges or possibility of freshenquiry is possible. Discussed on 13/8. Inasmuch asthere seems to be no possibility of fresh chargeframing or reenquiry, a decision may have to be takenon available records only. May be submitted to mysuccessor for orders”.20.There is a further order in the same page which isextracted here-under:“See Sectional notes. The main charge is ofpoor supervision as no malafide is established. Thischarge hasn't been established as evidence of its ownbut but has to be inferred because some VVK worksdidn't pass muster. Who was responsible for it hasto be proved on its own and if a charge does notstand on its own legs it is difficult to uphold”.21.In the said circumstances, the Disciplinary Authoritydecided to drop the charges and accordingly, an order was passed on04.12.2002 and the same is found from page Nos. 23 to 43 of the Note https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ File. The Chief Secretary also endorsed the view of DisciplinaryAuthority on 05.12.2002. Further, it seems that the file wascirculated to the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for hisorder. In this regard, the concluding paragraphs are extracted here-under:"5.Mfnt Kd;gf;fk; 24-42 gj;jp : 4-y; jpU.Mh;. v!;.gUM ,.t.g Kd;dhs;tdg;ghJfhtyh; (rK:f fhLfs; fz;fhzpg;g[) brd;id jw;nghJ jiyiktdg;ghJfhtyh; (tdr;bray;jpl;lk;) brd;id mth;fs; kPJ Twg;gl;l K:d;WFw;wr;rhl;LfSk; epU:gpf;fg;glhjjhy; mth; kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfspd; kPJ nky;eltof;ifiaf; iftplyhk; vd ,j;Jiw fUJfpwJ.6. vdnt nkw;Twpa R{H;epiyapy; gj;jp: 5-y; cs;s ,j;Jiwapd;fUj;JUtpd; kPJ Miz ntz;o ,f;nfhg;gpid khz;g[kpF Kjyikr;rh; mth;fSf;Fr;Rw;wDg;gyhk;.22.It seems that the file was put up before the HonourableMinister for Environment and Forests and the Honourable Ministerpassed the following orders on 03.02.2003 as found at page No.43 ofthe Note File. tprhuiz mYtyh; mspf;fg;gl;;l Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; tprhuiznkw;bfhz;L gUth kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; epUgzk; Mdjhfbjhptpj;Js;shh;. Mdhy; xG';F eltof;if mYtyh; tprhuiz mYtyh; Fw;wj;ijepUgpf;f jtwptpl;ljhf Twp Fw;wrhl;Lfs; epUgzk; Mftpy;iybadbjhptpj;Js;shh; ,Uthpd; fUj;JfSk; xd;Wf;bfhd;W Kuz;ghlhf cs;sJ vdbt ,e;neh;it kPz;Lk; Ma;t[ bra;J rl;lj;Jiwapd; fUj;Jfiza[k; bgwt[k;.i.e. according to the Honourable Minister for Environment andForests, there was conflict between the report of the Enquiry Officerand the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. He therefore wantedthe matter be referred to the Law Department for its opinion. 23.Accordingly, the opinion of the Law Department wasobtained and the same is found at page Nos.53 and 54 of the Note Fileand the same is usefully extracted here-under:“3.In view of the above, it is open to thedisciplinary authority to disagree with the findingsof the Inquiry authority, by recording reasonstherefor and to come to its own conclusion. In thiscase, E. & F. department has disagreed with thefindings of the Inquiry authority, and recordedreasons therefore and it has come to its ownconclusion, which is contradictory to the stand takenby Inquiry Authority. In view of the legal position https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ set out above, there is no legal infirmity in theaforesaid action of the E. & F. Department”. 24.In view of the opinion expressed by the Law Department,the Disciplinary Authority has passed a fresh order, which is foundfrom page Nos. 57 to 79 of the Note File, incorporating the opinionof the Law Department and deciding to drop the charges. The saidorder was signed by the Secretary to the concerned Department on19.06.2003 and also signed by the Chief Secretary on 20.06.2003. Thesaid file was forwarded to the Honourable Chief Minister of TamilNadu for his orders.25.Again, the Honourable Minister for Environment andForests passed the following orders on 07.08.2003, which is found atpage No.79 of the Note File:U:gha; 73.87.925 mstpw;F ,Hg;gPL Vw;gl;Ls;sij fz;lwpe;J mjd;nghpy; mj;jpl;lj;jpw;F jiyikg; bghWg;g[ tfpj;j mYtyh; kPJ Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ.Mdhy; mtiu Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F bghWg;ghf;f KoahJ vd;w Koit nkw;bfhz;lhy;gpd; me;j ,Hg;gpw;F fhuzkhdth;fs; ahh;? ,Hg;g[ Vw;gl;l bjhifapid ahhplkpUe;JtR{ypf;f Jiw fUjpa[s;sJ. Ma;t[ bra;J kPz;Lk; mDg;gt[k;.26.Therefore, the Honourable Minister had no quarrel fordropping the charges, but he wanted to ascertain who was responsiblefor the loss that was caused to the Government and from whom the lossamount has to be recovered.27.Based on the aforesaid order of the Honourable Minister,the concerned Secretary to the Environment and Forest Department,directed the PCCF, the second writ petitioner herein, to submit adetail report about the persons from whom the loss amount ofRs.73,87,923/- would be recovered. 28.In this regard, the PCCF wrote a letter dated 11.03.2004to the Secretary that recovery could be made from the Societiesconcerned as done in earlier occasions and the same is found at pageNo.82 of the Note File and the same is usefully extracted here-under::,Hg;gpid <Lbra;tJ rk;ge;jkhf bghUl;fis tpepnahfk; bra;aj;jtwpa kw;Wk;gzpfis jpUg;jpfukhf bra;J Kof;fj;jtwpa r';f';fs; kPJ eltof;if vLf;fg;gl;LtUfpwJ. ,njnghd;w ntbwhU neh;tpy; Kd;gzk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L bghUl;fistpepnahfk; bra;aj;jtwpa Cl;o jr;Rntiy fy;tp gy;tif bjhHpw;Tl;Lwt[r';fj;jplkpUe;J bjhifapid tR{ypj;jpl jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ r';f';fs; rl;lj;jpd;gojz;l eltof;ifa[k; Fw;wtpay; eltof;ifa[k; bjhlug;gl;Ls;sJ. mnj nghd;weltof;ifapid fhjp kw;Wk; fpuhkj;bjhHpy; thhpak; K:ykhf ,e;neh;tpYk; bjhluyhk;vdj; bjhptpj;Js;shh;. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29.Thereafter, the Note File revealed that there were somany correspondences between the Secretary and the PCCF regarding thedetails of the Co-operative Societies from whom the recoveries haveto be made and the quantum of amount from each of those Societies.The PCCF gave the list of Societies and the quantum of amount fromthose Societies. 30.While so, a note was made in Ref.No. 1/Secy.II/CMO/2005,dated 22.01.2005, from the office of the Honourable Chief Minister ofTamil Nadu, which is found at page No.165 of the Note File and thenote was signed by the Secretary – II to the Honourable ChiefMinister. The entire note is extracted here-under:“NOTERef: E & F. C.No.2038/FR.Spl.A/2000Kind attention is invited to the E & F Departmentreference cited.Three charges have been framed against ThiruR.S.Barua, IFS., for the alleged irregularities – notfollowing the procedure while effecting purchases fromthe Societies, sanctioning payments to the Societieswhich had supplied sub-standard goods and executed sub-standard works and also for not maintaining the recordsrelating to the works executed.The Inquiry Authority has submitted his reportstating that all the three charges are partly proved,whereas the Department has proposed to drop the chargeswithout analysing all the three charges and the InquiryReport carefully. This is evidence from the fact thatthe Hon'ble Minister for Forests and Environment hasmade certain observations at page No.43 of the notefile and also again at page No.79 of the note file. The contention of the Department that action hasbeen initiated against the subordinate staff is notconvincing to drop action against the delinquentofficer. The Environment and Forests Department mayexamine in detail and analyse the records carefully andre-circulate the file to Hon'ble Chief Minister fornecessary orders.The file is returned herewith”.31.The said note is based on the non-application of mind tothe entire facts. The note proceeds as if the decision to drop thecharges against the first respondent was based on the initiation ofaction against the subordinate staff. The detailed facts mentioned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above, would make it clear that the decision of the DisciplinaryAuthority to drop the charges against the first respondent was not onthe ground that action was initiated against the subordinate staff onthe issue involved. 32.Only after the said note from the office of theHonourable Chief Minister, the PCCF was again asked to submit hisreport after examining the case in detail. Based on the same, thePCCF submitted a report dated 22.06.2005 holding that the loss to theGovernment was only Rs.38,95,035/- and not Rs.73,87,923/-. It isstated by the PCCF that fifteen officials including the firstrespondent were responsible for the loss of Rs.38,95,035/- and thatthe first respondent is responsible for Rs.9,88,780/- only out of thesaid amount of Rs.38,95,035/-. The PCCF further stated that fiveofficials among them had retired from service four years back andtherefore, no action could be taken against them. The said orderdated 22.06.2005 is found from page Nos.255 to 272 of the CurrentFile. Further, from the Note File, we could see that thedisciplinary action is not yet completed against the said subordinatestaff involved in the alleged misconduct along with the firstrespondent though eleven years had elapsed.33.The Secretary to the Environment and Forests Departmentdirected the PCCF to explain as to how the first respondent would beheld responsible for Rs.9,88,780/- when the Inquiry Authority heldthat he was not responsible for any loss. 34.The PCCF wrote a detailed letter dated 21.08.2006 to thefirst petitioner explaining how his conclusions are correct and howthe conclusions of the Inquiry Authority was not correct. The sameis found at page Nos.279 to 291 of the Current File. 35.The Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated21.11.2006 to the first respondent holding that he was responsiblefor the loss to the tune of Rs.9,88,780/- and he was directed tofurnish his further representation, if any, to the Government within15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. This was insubstitution to its earlier letter dated 27.11.2000. In the saidletter dated 21.11.2006, there was nothing mentioned about the reportof the PCCF dated 22.06.2005 and 21.08.2006. However, it is veryclear from the said order dated 21.11.2006 that the first petitionercame to the conclusion that the first respondent was solelyresponsible for the loss of Rs.9,88,780/- based on the reports ofPCCF referred to above and the reports of the PCCF were not furnishedto the first respondent. Further more, the exercise made by the PCCFbehind the back of the first respondent revising the enquiry reportis not permissible and is in flagrant violations of principle ofnatural justice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

36.The learned Special Government Pleader relies on theletter dated 21.11.2006 and contended that the first respondent wouldsubmit his comments / reply thereon. 37.Further, the aforesaid deliberations within theDepartment for five years after the first respondent submitted hisrepresentation dated 14.03.2001 on the enquiry report is totally notjustified and the Tribunal is correct in quashing the charge sheetholding that the delay of five years was not explained convincinglyby the Department and the first respondent was seriously prejudicedue to the delay in non-conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings asheld by the Tribunal. 38.However, as stated above, the Disciplinary Authorityacted based on the note of the office of the Honourable ChiefMinister without applying its mind and called for fresh reportexamining the records behind the back of the first respondent toreplace the enquiry report and therefore, the action of theDisciplinary Authority is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution. 39.Hence, while we uphold the reasoning of the Tribunal forquashing the charge sheet, we have given the additional reasons asstated above. 40.The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTKTo1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Environment and Forests Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Buildings, Chennai – 600 015. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.4.The Secretary Government of India Environment and Forests Department, New Delhi.1 cc To The Government Pleader, Advocate, SR.207371 cc To Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate, SR.20698W.P.No.12313 of 2008 BS(CO)SRA(22/5/2009)