PONNURANGAM Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VELLORE CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Plot Watcher on daily wages on 01.07.1978. Subsequently, he was absorbed as Forest Guard on time scale of pay on 08.11.1990 and joined duty on 15.11.1990. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified for being promoted to the post of Forester. While so, when he was working as Forest Guard, he was placed under suspension. A charge memo dated 04.05.1998 was issued by the second respondent for derliction of duty for not meeting the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras in respect of STOR No.1/98 and 2/98 dated 23.03.1998 and for not handing over the original records in respect of the said case. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.06.1998 denying the charges and also sought for examination of five witnesses during personal hearing. According to the petitioner, though he was given the file and directed to meet the Government Advocate at High Court, Madras, he could not come to Madras due to his ill-health and therefore, he has applied for leave. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed, who, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted his report to the disciplinary authoirity. On receipt of the enquiry officer's report, the disciplinary authority issued a notice dated 09.03.1999 enclosing the copy of the enquiry report and called upon the petitioner to submit his further explanation. The petitioner also submitted his further explanation on 29.03.1999. According to the petitioner, without accepting his further explanation or without assigning any reasons, the disciplinary authority has passed an order dated 10.05.1999, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect.

(2.) As against the order of punishment dated 10.05.1999, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 28.06.1999 reiterating the points raised in his further explanation dated 29.03.1999. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority also did not consider any of the points raised by him in the appeal and the appellate authority has summarily rejected the appeal on 05.09.1999 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) After rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred a mercy petition to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 12.09.2002, but the same was not entertained. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition on 27.09.2003 before the first respondent and the revision petition was also rejected on 27.01.2004. The said order dated 27.01.2004 is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which culminated from the original order of punishment dated 10.05.1999.