J RAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 as Assistant Draughtsman and subsequently he was promoted as Junior Draughting Officer. Presently the petitioner is working as Junior Draughting Officer in the office of the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris North Division, Udagamandalam. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has wantonly failed to honour his requirements including the loan sought for by him. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent had insisted him to fabricate records to make it appear that certain works were completed before March 31st of 2006, while the fact remains that those works have not been completed. When the petitioner refused to carry out such instruction given to him, he was tortured, given undue pressure in discharge of his work. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a legal notice dated 02.05.2006 to the fourth respondent which culminated in an evasive reply dated 09.06.2006 sent by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved against the said notice, the fourth respondent instigated the then Conservator of Forest, Coimbatore to transfer him from Coimbatore Circle to Wildlife Division, Udhagamandalam by an order in S.O.No.82/06 E1 dated 10.05.2006. Based on such order of transfer, when the petitioner reported for duty on 01.06.2010, he was informed that the post had already been filled up by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, therefore, he sought for alternative posting. When there was a vacancy in Udagamandalam North Division, the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to fill the said vacancy by posting him by a representation dated 15.06.2006. Accordingly, a revised order was issued on 31.05.2006, but the same was not communicated to him. Ultimately, on 28.06.2006 when the petitioner went to join duty, he was not permitted to join or he was not allowed to see the revised order, but only directed to produce fitness certificate. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 03.07.2006 to the authorities again and ultimately, even without a fitness certificate from the medical board, he was permitted to join duty on 24.07.2006.

(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner has filed an application on 19.07.2006 seeking certain information regarding his General Provident Fund Account Loan application dated 20.02.2006 by invoking the Right to Information Act 2005. As contemplated under the said Act, the fourth respondent had sent a reply dated 23.07.2006. In and by the said reply dated 23.07.2006, the fourth respondent even returned the fees remitted by the petitioner for furnishing certain information thereby the fourth respondent arbitrarily rejected the application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and therefore it is not in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 12.08.2006 under Section 18 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The second respondent entertained the appeal, issued notice to the respondents therein and conducted enquiry. Ultimately, an order dated 26.10.2006 was passed by the second respondent wherein the denial of the petitioner's request by the fourth respondent was commented by the second respondent stating that he, as a public authority, has breached the provisions of Sections 6(3) and 7 (1) of the Act and he is liable for imposition of penalties under Section 20 (1) (2) of the Act. Therefore, a direction was issued to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to initiate necessary action by giving him reasonable opportunity to putforth his defence and send a report to the Commission within six weeks. Pursuant to the above said order, according to the petitioner, no order has been passed. Therefore, he made further representation to the second respondent on 01.12.2006. According to the petitioner, the explanation offered by the fourth respondent on 01.11.2006 pursuant to the order of the Commission is not legal and correct. The petitioner would only contend that in view of the above reason, he has been harassed and victimised for various reasons. Therefore, again, on 23.12.2008, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents 1 to 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the adverse remarks made by the second respondent/Commission against the fourth respondent, no action has been taken by the respondents 1 and 3, on the other hand, the fourth respondent was given promotion from the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest to Conservator of Forest on 17.12.2008. Under those circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to abstain from victimising and harassing the petitioner herein and further take necessary action and implement the order of the second respondent dated 26.10.2006 in case No. 2818/Enquiry/2006.

(3.) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the third respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was specifically contended that the relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that the third respondent has already pursued action after the order passed by the Second Respondent/Commission on 26.10.2006 in case No. 2818/Enquiry/2006 by sending a report to the second respondent vide Lr.No.S1/66711/06 dated 15.12.2006. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. The averment that the petitioner has been harassed by the respondents was also denied as false and without basis. The fourth respondent worked as District Forest Officer, Gudalur between 29.05.2005 to 16.12.2006. Even though the petitioner alleged so many lapses against the respondents, it is the petiitoner who is facing many charges and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner was that he has not handed over the files relating to sensitive cases, neglect of duty, violation of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, disobedience, teasing the pensioners who are coming with certain request etc.,. For the advocate notice dated 02.05.2006, suitable reply was sent by the fourth respondent on 09.06.2006 stating that the petitioner only is giving serious administrative problems, creating enemity with his colleagues, acting in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Department. So far as the complaint against the return of his request for information sought under the Right to Information Act, the appellate authority had taken up the matter and as per the directions of the appellate authority, the fourth respondent was asked to explain for the violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The fourth respondent gave a detailed reply for the same quoting various provisions of the Right to Information Act stating that there was no intentional violation of the provisions of the Act. The fourth respondent therefore regretted for the lapses that might have crept inadvertently and requested the commission to condone the same. The third respondent forwarded the explanation offered by the fourth respondent and requested the Commission to accept the same and all further action be dropped vide letter dated 15.12.2006. Therefore, it was contended by the third respondent that necessary action has been pursued pursuant to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Information Commision and this has also been admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner now contends that he is not satisfied with the said information and once again approached the second respondent by submitting a reprsentation dated 01.12.2006. The petitioner's request made in his representation dated 26.10.2006 has already been complied with and therefore the relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous. In the counter affidavit of the third respondent, the various charges levelled against the petitioner were also extracted. It is also stated that the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of three years from the date of direction given by the second respondent. Moreover, the directions issued by the commission has already been complied with, hence, there is nothing survives in this writ petition for adjudication. The supplementary prayer sought for by the petitioner to direct the respondents not to harass him is untenable and that the said prayer has been invented only for the purpose of filing this writ petition since there is no harassment caused to the petitioner, as alleged.