S MOHAMED HANIFFA Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Forest Guard. THE District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari issued a charge sheet under Rule 17 (b) of the <ACT>TAMIL NADU CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1955</ACT> on 26.12.1997 alleging that the petitioner failed to prevent illicit felling and removing of valuable trees from Kulasekaram South Beat. THE petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.06.1998 denying the charges. THE District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari came to the conclusion that there was a loss of Rs.93,358/- and he directed recovery of Rs.46,679/- being the 50% of the total value of the missing trees, in his order dated 15.10.1998.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal on 10.12.1998 to the respondent. THEreafter, he filed an Original Application in O.A.No.88 of 1999 seeking disposal of the appeal dated 10.12.1998 made by the petitioner. THE Tribunal passed an order dated 17.02.1999 directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal and to keep recovery in abeyance. THEreafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 07.08.1999 confirming the order of the District Forest Officer.

(3.) HEARD Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Kirubanandhan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the respondent.