Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:26.03.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMAW.P.No.3676 of 2012(O.A.No.2853 of 1991)M.Krishnan... Petitioner.- vs -1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary Forest Department, Fort St.George, Madras-600 009.2.The Conservator of Forest, Vellore Region, VelloreNorth Arcot District3.The District Forest Officer, Hosur, Dharmapuri District.... Respondents. Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, to call for therecords and quash the proceedings of 3rd respondent inNa.Ka.No.15085/89 E2 dated 26.3.1990 and consequent proceedings ofsecond respondent in Na.Ka.No.11520/90/E2 dated 5.10.1990 and re-instate the petitioner with back wages and all other attendantbenefits. For Petitioner: Mr.C.Selvaraj, S.C., For Mr.K.SelvaranganFor Respondents: Mr.M.Inbanathan, G.A. (FOREST)

O R D E RThe petitioner's father late J.Munisamy died on 26.10.1983,while in service as Forest Guard, at Hosur Range. The petitionerwas temporarily appointed as Forest Guard at Hosur Range vide orderdated 05.10.1989 on compassionate ground. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The petitioner joined duty on 20.10.1989. The petitionerwas placed under suspension on 30.12.1989, on contemplated enquiry, based on the report of the Forest Range Officer.

A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 04.01.1990.The allegation against petitioner was that while he was posted as Guard at the Sandal Woods godown at Denkanikottai on 23.12.1989night along with one Jayaraman, an attempt was made to commit theftof 12 sandal woods connected with STOR No.5 of 1985-86 and 2/86-87,which was detected by the Co-Guard Jayaraman.

The petitioner denied charges levelled against him, andalso requested for the copy of statement of Forest Range Officer, Denkanikottai. The petitioner thereafter was served with notice ofenquiry, to be held on 31.01.1990 at 11:00 a.m.

The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer andsubmitted his explanation to the charges.

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 26.03.1990,on the ground that the petitioner had confessed his guilt beforethe Forest Range Officer on 28.12.1989.

The appeal filed by petitioner against the order ofpunishment was also dismissed on 05.10.1990.

The petitioner submits that the order of removal, being anon speaking order, cannot be sustained in law.

The order of removal is also challenged on the groundthat enquiry conducted against petitioner was not proper, andfurther that the appellate authority also confirmed the orderwithout discussing the law and evidence.

It is also the submission of petitioner, that thestatement alleged to have been given by petitioner before the Forest Range Officer, Denkanikottai, was not furnished topetitioner, even though he had asked for supply of the copy todefend himself before the enquiry officer.

It is also the submission of petitioner that the enquiryofficer did not examine any witness to prove charges, but reliedupon a telegram sent by one Ramesh, and alleged confessionalstatement of petitioner. The telegram was fictitious, therefore, could not be relied upon to hold petitioner guilty.

The case of petitioner further is that the confessionalstatement was not voluntary. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

In sum and substance, contention is that enquiry wasconducted in violation of principles of natural justice, and alsoagainst statutory rules. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contendsthat the enquiry was not conducted as per the statutory rule, aswitnesses were examined by the enquiry officer, without givingopportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses.

Not only this, the enquiry officer, after recording thestatement of witnesses and defense statement, did not submit theenquiry report, but only sent the statement of witnesses to thecompetent authority.

The reading of the proceedings of the enquiry officerclearly show that the enquiry has not been conducted as per therules. Furthermore, enquiry officer also did not submit any enquiryreport. In absence of enquiry report, it was not possible for thecompetent authority to pass an impugned order. 17. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law, beingbased on enquiry conducted in violation of principle of naturaljustice, as also against the statutory rules. The petitioner wasnot even supplied the copy of report on which reliance was placedby competent authority. The order of the competent authority asalso appellate authority deserves to be set aside, being arbitraryand against statutory rules, as in absence of enquiry report, itwas not possible to pass order of punishment.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugnedorders are set aside, and the case is remitted back to the enquiryofficer, to hold enquiry fresh in accordance with the procedurelaid down under Rule 17(b) and submit enquiry report on thecharges, to the competent authority. The competent authority shallthereafter proceed as per rules, and pass appropriate orders.

No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.ar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To,1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary Forest Department, Fort St.George, Madras-600 009.2.The Conservator of Forest, Vellore Region, VelloreNorth Arcot District3.The District Forest Officer, Hosur, Dharmapuri District.1 cc to Mr.K. Selvarangan, Advocate, Sr. 206191 cc to the Spl. Government Pleader (F)SR 20134W.P.No.3676 of 2012(O.A.No.2853 of 1991)TS (CO)kk 16/4