A.Arulsamy, v. The Principal Chief

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.02.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.12638 of 2007 (T) O.A.No.1199 of 2003 A.Arulsamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai - 15.

2.The Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore Circle, Coimbatore.

3.The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.1199 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to call for the records of the second respondent relating to his Proc.Na.Ka.No.Pa.2/20914/97, dated 10.01.2001 and Proc.No.8494/2001/Pa.2, dated 20.07.2002, quash the same and issue consequential direction to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner with 18% interest and to regularise the period of suspension from 26.11.1997 to 05.06.1998 as duty for all purposes and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents :Mr.N.Inbanathan, GA (Forests)

ORDER

The petitioner filed O.A.No.1199 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the orders passed by the second respondent / the Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore Circle, Coimbatore, in Proc.Na.Ka.No.Pa.2/20914/97, dated 10.01.2001 and Proc.No.8494/2001/Pa.2, dated 20.07.2002, with a further direction to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner with 18% interest and to regularise the period of suspension from 26.11.1997 to 05.06.1998 as duty for all purposes. On abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.12638 of 2007.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Ranger in the year 1977 through TNPSC and after successful training, he joined as Forest Ranger on 01.11.1979 in Coimbartore Range. While the petitioner was working in Enforcement of Forest Act, Palladam, upon coming to know about the smuggling of Sandalwood, on 12.10.1997, he seized Sandalwood belonging to a member of the then Ruling Party. Thereafter, on 25.11.1997, the then Hon'ble Minister of Forests, undertook himself verification of stock and followed by that on 26.11.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the second respondent on the ground of enquiry into grave charges with regard to alleged shortage of Rs.16 lakhs and for alleged failure to maintain proper records.

The third respondent issued a charge memo dated 28.01.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules (in short "Rules"), in respect of certain alleged irregularities in discharge of his duties as Forest Ranger, Forest Act, Enforcement Range, during the period from 03.07.1996 to 26.11.1997. On receipt of the charge memo, though the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.03.1998 to the third respondent requesting permission to peruse certain documents relating to the charges so as to enable him to submit his explanation to the charges, the same was not supplied to him. Subsequently, the District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner.

Thereafter, the said Enquiry Officer permitted the petitioner to peruse only few documents and refused permission to peruse other documents on the ground that they were not relevant to the charges.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by citing the above said facts, further contended that even though the petitioner made several representations to the Enquiry Officer seeking permission to peruse certain documents, no documents was furnished to the petitioner to defend himself effectively in the enquiry proceedings. However, the Enquiry Office conducted exparte enquiry into the matter during December, 1999 and sent his enquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation on receipt of the enquiry report, the second respondent, without considering the same, by an order dated 10.01.2001, passed the impugned order of huge recovery of Rs.3,03,337/- and also stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The second respondent also passed another impugned order dated 20.07.2002 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as leave.

4. It is further contended that the third respondent failed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case effectively, since the said authority had not submitted the documents as sought for by the petitioner. It is further stated that though in the enquiry proceedings, one Mr.Thangaraj, Ranger, deposed that one

Balakrishnan, the then Forester, accompanied the lorry for weighing the Sandalwood Stock, no statement was obtained from the said Forester and that the said Forester had not signed in the Mahazar prepared at the time of verification of stock. The respondents also failed to consider as to how the said Thangaraj, the then Ranger, was permitted to prepare the Mahazar, while one Balakrishnan, Forester, was reported present and accompanied the lorry for weighing the stock and it is further stated that no statement had been obtained from the lorry driver or the Cleaner.

Thus, in these circumstances, he contended, the Enquiry Officer ought not to have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for taking out the stock out of the garage of the District Forest Officer's complex and transporting the same in a Van TDB 1006 without Way Off permit for the purpose of weighing the stock and in putting back the sandalwood stock in the complex. When the petitioner was admittedly present at the Headquarters, Palladam, whatever done, during his absence, was in violation of the prescribed procedure, thus, the same cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for the entire alleged act. That apart, the respondents again committed one another mistake by not examining one Prakasan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), who was present during the weighing of stocks on 25.11.1997.

Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer that the alleged shortage of 943 kgs. of Sandalwood was on account of dereliction of duty committed by the petitioner, is far from acceptance. Therefore, for all the above said reasons, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, by filing a detailed counter affidavit, submitted that while the petitioner was working as Forest Ranger in Forest Act Enforcement Range, Palladam, the then Hon'ble Minster for Forests, took up a surprise check of Sandalwood stock seized in Forest Offences booked by the petitioner in the presence of Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore Circle, Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Western Region, Coimbatore, District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division and other staff members. At that time of inspection, it was found that there was a shortage of 4974 kgs. of Sandalwood against the book balance stock of 6833 kgs. Sandalwood and that the said shortage resulted in a revenue loss of Rs.16 lakhs to the Government.

For all these irregularities, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 26.11.1997. After completion of the preliminary enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Rules. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, in turn, upon perusing the documents placed before him, held the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. During the enquiry proceedings, though Enquiry Officer sent several enquiry notices to the petitioner calling for his appearance to the enquiry fixed on various dates, such as 14.05.1999, 30.06.1999, 03.08.1999, 06.12.1999, 15.12.1999, 29.12.1999 and 25.01.

attended the enquiry only on 06.12.1999 and thereby he requested to peruse eight more records and out of these, two sets of records viz. (i) Mahazar prepared on 25.11.1997 before the Hon'ble Minister for Forests for checking of sandalwood stock and (ii)diary for the fortnight ending 30.11.1997. However, other six sets of records were not given to him, as the same were totally irrelevant to the causes of shortage of sandalwood and therefore, his request to peruse those documents was rejected by the third respondent, vide his proceedings dated 06.12.1999. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not given fair and reasonable opportunity and due to nonperusal of these records, he was unable to explain the reasons for the shortage of sandalwood cannot be sustained. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard both sides.

7. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was working as Forest Ranger in Forest Act Enforcement Range, Palladam, Coimbatore Forest Division, the then Hon'ble Minster of Forests, visited the District Forest Officer's Bungalow at Coimbatore on 25.11.1997 in the presence of the Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore Circle, Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Western Region, Coimbatore, District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division and other staff members, and checked the Sandalwood Stock seized in Forest Offences booked by the petitioner. Whileso, it was found that there was a shortage of 4974 kgs. of Sandalwood against the book balance stock of 6833 kgs. Sandalwood and that the said shortage of 4974 kgs. of Sandalwood resulted in a revenue loss of Rs.16 kgs. to the Government. Therefore, for the said alleged irregularities, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the second respondent, vide his proceedings dated 26.11.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 28.01.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Rules.

8. It is also an admitted fact that though, during the Enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer sent several enquiry notices to the petitioner for his appearance to the enquiry fixed on various dates, such as 14.05.1999, 30.06.1999, 03.08.1999, 06.12.1999, 15.12.1999, 29.12.1999 and 25.01.2000, the petitioner appeared only on 06.12.1999 and he never participated in the Enquiry proceedings fixed on other dates. Though the petitioner sought for certain records to defend his case, the Enquiry Officer gave only two sets of records to the petitioner and thereby rejected the request of the petitioner finding that his request with regard to irrelevant documents was only for the purpose of prolonging the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner, who was admittedly allowed to peruse some of the documents by the Enquiry Officer, has not demonstrated before this Court how he was prejudiced by not perusing the other documents. Therefore, when he was not able to prove the prejudice suffered for not perusing the documents, he cannot make out a case.

Useful reference can be had from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director Ecil v. B.Karunakar ((1993) 4 SCC 727), wherein it is held in paragraph 31 that if the Court, after hearing the parties, comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court should not interfere with the order of punishment.

9. That apart, the petitioner did not further move/prefer any application/appeal against the denial of producing such documents. Therefore, from the above, it is very clear that the petitioner was given all the reasonable opportunities to defend his case. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that, due to non-perusal of these records, he was unable to explain the reasons for the shortage of Sandalwood, cannot be sustained.

10. In fine, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar Dated:20.3.15 True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai - 15.

2.The Conservator of Forests, Coimbatore Circle, Coimbatore.

3.The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore.

+1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate,SR.6306 +1 cc to Spl.Government Pleader,SR.6183 ssi(co) krd 26/3 W.P.No.12638 of 2007