T.Chinnappan v. The Conservator of Foresters & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 24-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.49450 of 2006(O.A.No.696 of 2001)T.Chinnappan.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Conservator of Foresters,Dharmapuri Circle, Dharmapuri.2.The District Forest Officers,Interphase Forestry,Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri.3.The Ranger,Interphase Forestry, Krishnagiri Range, Krishnagiri... Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.696 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.49450 of 2006,seeking for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstatethe applicant as plot watcher by revoking the order of oraltermination of Service, with effect from 1.11.1999 and direct therespondents to pay all benefits due to the applicant from 1.11.1999. For Petitioner : Ms.ArulmozhiFor Respondents : Mr.A.N.Purusothaman Additional Government Pleader (Forests)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner has been working under the third respondent as aPlot Watcher from 1.6.1982. The post of Plot Watcher has not beenbrought into the regular establishment and therefore, the petitionerhas been treated as a contingency staff. In spite of his long service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of over 17 years he has not been recruited as a regular Watcher.While so, the third respondent had informed the petitioner, on1.11.1999, that he will not be paid the salary from the month ofNovember, 1999. This act of the third respondent amounts totermination of the petitioner's service, without any notice beingissued to him. Thus, the termination of the service of the petitioneris in violation of the procedures established by law and it is incontravention of the principles of natural justice. 3. It has also been stated that at the time of his terminationfrom service, he had been included in the list of persons who werebeing considered for recruitment as regular Plot Watchers. Thetermination of the service of the petitioner, who was the only breadwinner of the family, would cause irreparable loss and mental agonyto the members of the petitioner's family. In spite of the requestsmade by the petitioner the respondents have not passed any orders infavour of the petitioner, till date. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents ithas been stated that the petitioner had worked in the InterfaceForestry Range, Krishnagiri, as a Plot Watcher, on Nominal MusterRoll basis. While he was working as a Plot Watcher, he was in chargeof Tank Karuvel plantations and Karadu Plantations. While the Tankwas under the control of the petitioner, it was reported by theRanger, Krishnagiri, that the Karuvel trees worth RS.2,39,581/- hadbeen felled, illicitly. Since there were no standing trees in theTank, no sale of trees by public auction could take place during theyear 1996-1997. In such circumstances, the petitioner had beenstopped from performing his duties, as a Plot Watcher, from1.11.1999. In fact, the petitioner has been working under the controlof the third respondent only from 1.7.1987 and not from 1.6.1982, asclaimed by him. Though his name had been included in the senioritylist of Plot Watchers for their future appointments, as regular Plotwatchers, he could not be considered for such appointment, as he hadbeen stopped from work, from 1.11.1999. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadvehemently contended that the act of the third respondent, instopping the petitioner from working, as a Plot Watcher, amounts totermination of the petitioner from service. Since no prior notice hadbeen given to the petitioner, by the third respondent, before he wasterminated from service, such termination cannot be sustained in theeye of law, as it is in contravention of the principles of naturaljustice. Even if the petitioner has been employed on a temporarybasis, he should have been given an opportunity to put forth hiscase, in view of his long years of service. The termination of theservice of the petitioner, especially, at the time when his name hadbeen included in the list of persons who were to be regularised inservice, is arbitrary, illegal and void. When he was charged withnegligence in performing his duties, he should have been issued witha show cause notice and an enquiry should have been conducted, giving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Theallegations made against the petitioner attaches a stigma on him andit has civil consequences. Therefore, the termination by the thirdrespondent, without following the principles of justice, cannot besustained in the eye of law.6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on adecision of the Supreme Court in Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India2000(3) SCC 588, wherein, it has held as follows:"The appellant, although a casual labour, had acquiredtemporary status. Once an employee attains the "temporary"status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one ofwhich is that he becomes entitled to the constitutionalprotection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution andother articles dealing with services under the Union ofIndia. The services were terminated on account of theallegation of assault made against the appellant. The orderof termination in the instant case, cannot be treated to bea simple order of retrenchment. It was an order passed byway of punishment and, therefore, was an order of dismissalwhich, having been passed on the basis of preliminaryinquiry and without holding a regular departmental inquiry,cannot be sustained."7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that the petitioner had been employed as a PlotWatcher, on Nominal Muster Roll basis. While he was working as a PlotWatcher, he had been negligent in performing his duties. Due to hisnegligence, Karuvel trees worth Rs.2,39,581/-, had been illegallyfelled by unknown persons. Since he had not been brought into theestablishment, as a regular employee, he was stopped from work, from1.11.1999. As such the petitioner does not have any right to the postof Plot Watcher, as he was working only on Nominal Muster Roll basis.Therefore, he was stopped from work, without any notice being issuedto him and without conducting any enquiry. No charges had been framedagainst the petitioner and therefore, there was no necessity toconduct an enquiry. Further, the petitioner cannot claim that astigma had been attached to him due to his termination from service. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason forgranting the reliefs, as prayed for by him, in the present writpetition. It is clear that the petitioner had been employed as a PlotWatcher, only on Nominal Muster Roll basis and therefore, he did nothave any right to the post or to be regularised in service, as a plotwatcher. Even though his name had been included in the list ofpersons, who were to be regularised in service, it cannot be saidthat he had a right to the post or to continue in service, as a PlotWatcher. No charges had been levelled against the petitioner before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he had been stopped from performing his duties as a Plot Watcher. Inspite of the fact that no notice had been issued to the petitioner,by the third respondent, before he was stopped from performing hisduties, it cannot be said that the third respondent had acted in anarbitrary and unreasonable manner and that he had acted incontravention of the principles of natural justice. In such view ofthe matter the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it isdismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Conservator of Foresters,Dharmapuri Circle, Dharmapuri.2.The District Forest Officers,Interphase Forestry,Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri.3.The Ranger,Interphase Forestry, Krishnagiri Range, Krishnagiri.1 cc To Mr.A.Arul Mozhi, Advocate, SR.34231.1 cc To The Special Government Pleader (Forests)SR.34273.Writ Petition No.49450 of 2006 KJI(CO)RVL 03.08.2009