P.Ramamoorthy v. The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited (TAFCORN) & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.09.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJAW.P.No.37679 of 2002P.Ramamoorthy ... PetitionerVs.1.The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited (TAFCORN), Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Secretary to Govt., Environment and Forest Department, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited, Tiruchirapalli – 600 021.3.The Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited, Karaikudi.4.Thiru. Mani... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling forthe records of the 3rd Respondent relating to Pro.No.4343/99/KV dated25/10/99 and of the 2nd Respondent relating to Pro.No.300/2000/Pa.2,dated 07.12.2000, and issue consequential directions to refund with18% interest the amounts recovered from the petitioner, pursuant tothe impugned orders.For Petitioner : Mr.M.RaviFor R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Hidayathullakhan, GA(F)For R4: Mr.S.Govinda Reddy ORDERThe petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarifiedmandamus to quash the proceedings passed by the thirdrespondent/Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation CorporationLimited, Karaikudi, in Pro.No.4343/99/Ku., dated 25.10.1999, as well https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as the proceedings passed by the second respondent/Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, Tiruchirapalli, inPro.No.300/2000/Pa.2, dated 07.12.2000, and consequently to directthe respondents to refund with 18% interest the amount recovered fromthe petitioner, pursuant to the impugned orders.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that hewas appointed as Forest Watcher on 05.03.1982. Subsequently, he waspromoted as Forest Guard with effect from 16.04.1993. While he wasworking as Forest Guard in Kothamangalam Beat during the year 1999,he was given additional work to monitor the cutting of trees, asthere was no Forester for the said section. Taking advantage of theabsence of the forester and the petitioner, the Villagers in thesurrounding village committed pilferage and thereby, the stakes werereduced to 225, resulting the theft of 357 stakes valued atRs.67,129/-. Whileso, the fourth respondent, without anyjurisdiction and without following procedure, in his proceedingsdated 13.10.1999, issued orders to remit a sum of Rs.67,129/- for thealleged theft of lops and tops in Kothamangalam Beat. Thereupon, thethird respondent, in his proceedings dated 25.10.1999, issued ordersfor recovery of Rs.67,129/- from the petitioner's pay at 67 monthlyinstalments of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved by the same, when hepreferred an appeal before the second respondent, the secondrespondent also rejected same in his proceedings dated 07.12.2000.As against the same, the present writ petition has been filed by thepetitioner with the aforesaid prayer.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatthird respondent, in his proceedings dated 25.10.1999, withoutfollowing the prescribed procedure in TAFCORN Service Regulation 56(2), passed the impugned order directing recovery of Rs.67,129/- fromthe petitioner. As per Regulation 56(2), in every case where it isproposed to impose on an employee any of the minor penalties he shallbe given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation thathe may desire to make and such representation if any shall be takeninto consideration before the order imposing the penalty is passed.Therefore, on that basis, he submitted that the order of recovery hasbeen passed in violation of Corporation Regulation 56(2) withoutfollowing any procedure known to law and even the Appellate Authorityhas not taken into consideration of his contention in appeal. Withthis submission, he sought for quashing the impugned proceedingspassed by the respondents 2 and 3.4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Forest) appearing forthe respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner is making out anew case saying that the impugned order passed by the respondents arenot in tune with Regulation 56(2). Though 56(2) prescribed properprocedure for imposing penalty, in the present case, the petitionerwas given additional charge for monitoring 582 stacks, as the personin-charge of Kothamangalam section, namely, Ranganathan was placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under suspension for other reasons. Whileso, the AssistantConservator of Forests, Trichy, had also inspected the said area on28.08.199 and reported that only 225 stacks were available in thesaid area instead of 582 stacks handed over to the petitioner.Therefore, based on the report, the Managing Director, Trichy, in hisproceedings dated 28.09.1999, directed the Regional Manager,Karaikudi, to take action against the concerned officer forrecovering the loss of 357 stacks and to collect the loss ofRs.67,129/- sustained by the Corporation. On that basis, when memodated 13.10.1999 was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay theloss amount of Rs.67,129/- sustained by the Corporation within 7 daysfrom the date of service memo, the petitioner on receipt of the memocame forward with representation dated 22.10.1999, asking the thirdrespondent not to recover the entire amount of Rs.67,129/-, but torecover only Rs.1,000/- in each month. Since the petitioner hassubmitted written representation stating to recover the entire moneyby way of monthly instalments, the same was accepted by the secondrespondent. Therefore, the new case made out by the petitioner thathe was forced to submit the written representation dated 22.10.1999is absolutely unacceptable. With above submission, he sought fordismissal of the writ petition.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.6. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was given additionalcharge to look after 582 stacks of Kothamangalam section, as theperson in-charge of the said area was placed under suspension forother reasons. While the petitioner was working in the said area,the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Trichy, inspected the said areaand thereby reported that out of 582 stacks, only 225 stacks wereavailable. Based on the said report of the Assistant Conservator ofForests, the Managing Director, Trichy/second respondent herein, inhis proceedings dated 28.09.1999, directed the Regional Manager,Karaikudi, to take action against the concerned for recovering theloss of 357 stacks, which is valued at Rs.67,129/-. On that basis, amemo dated 13.10.1999 was issued calling upon the petitioner to paythe loss amount of Rs.67,129/- sustained by the Corporation within 7days from the date of service of memo. Thereafter, the petitioner,in his written representation dated 22.10.199, by stating that in theforest range which was surrounded by about 10 villages, in theabsence of forest official/forester, proper control could not be hadover the villagers committing theft of faggots, highlighted that dueto assembly election time, he also could not take any effective step.So stating, he took responsibility for the lapses and furtherrequested that, for the loss estimated at Rs.69,127/-, monthlydeduction of Rs.1,000/- may be effected from his salary fromNovember, 1999 onwards. Therefore, when the petitioner himselfadmitted his guilt and thereby requested to recover the loss bymonthly instalments and again even in the representation or in theappeal or in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mentioned anywhere that he cannot be liable for loss of 357 stacks,it is too late for the petitioner either to say that the fourthrespondent has coerced the petitioner to accept the guilt or theprocedure contemplated under Regulation 56(2) has not been followedby the respondents. Therefore, the impugned proceedings passed bythe respondents 2 and 3 cannot be found fault with. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition standsdismissed. No Costs. Sd/-Deputy Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.rkmTo1.The Chairman-cum-Secretary to Govt., The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited (TAFCORN), Environment and Forest Department, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited, Tiruchirapalli – 600 021.3.The Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu Forest PlantationCorporation Limited, Karaikudi.1 CC To Mr.D.Govinda Reddy, Advocate SR NO.571761 CC To Mr. Advocate SR NO.570691 CC to Government Pleader[Forests] SR 56859W.P.No.37679 of 2002mg[co]gp/10.10