K BELLIE Vs. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was one of the 52 Foresters sent for training. THE petitioner joined the training for the 6 months condensed course, but he was found in the hostel with full intoxication and causing troubles to his co-trainees. As he was addicted to Alcohol and also remained absent from the training, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. THE disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, appointed the enquiry officer and thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear for the enquiry. THE enquiry officer, after completing the enquiry proceedings, submitted his report, holding that the first charge was not proved, but in respect of charge No.2, the petitioner was found proved by the enquiry officer. On the basis of the above said findings submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, issued a second show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to submit his detailed explanation. THE petitioner also submitted his further explanation. On receipt of the second explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, rejecting the second explanation offered by the petitioner, imposed the punishment of reversion from the post of Forester to the post of Forest Guard. Aggrieved by the reversion order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the first charge having not found proved against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority should have imposed only a lighter punishment instead of imposing major punishment of permanent reversion from the post of Forester to Forest Guard. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the reversion order.

(3.) THE petitioner being Forester, sent for 6 months training course to Southern Forest Rangers College at Coimbatore. During the training course, mid-term examinations were conducted from 02.07.99 to 08.07.99, but, the petitioner failed to attend the said examination from 05.07.99 onwards and he was found sleeping only in the hostel without attending the classes. On enquiry by the instructors incharge of training course, he was found staying only in the hostel room without attending the mid-term examinations and the training course. In view of his bad habit of wilful failure to attend the classes due to intoxication, he was relieved from the hostel from 07.07.99 by the Dean of Southern Forest Rangers College, Coimbatore, by letter dated 07.07.99 with a specific instruction to the District Forest Officer to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for his non attendance for the mid-term examinations and for his indiscipline behaviour. Subsequently, necessary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant conservator of Forests. As per the enquiry report, he was found guilty for not attending the mid-term examinations from 05.07.99 onwards and he was also found guilty of wilful failure to report for duty after relieving from the college hostel. When the petitioner was sent as a Forester for getting useful training at the cost of the Department, in the hostel during his stay along with other trainees, he was expected to maintain absolute discipline, instead the petitioner has failed to attend the training properly and as a result, he wilfully neglected to attend the examination conducted by the college, by which, the petitioner made training programme meaningless and defeated the Government scheme in imparting training to the Foresters to update their knowledge on Forestry for better administration and development of forests. Since the disciplinary authority/the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris North Division, had passed orders reverting him to the post of Forest Guard permanently, taking into account his retirement benefit and in the appeal, the Appellate Authority also having found the punishment inflicted on the petitioner suitable, this Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot show any indulgence to such person. THErefore, this Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.