N DHARMALINGAM Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who joined the service in Forest Department as Forest Guard, was subsequently promoted as a Forester on 8.7.1999. While working in the Polur Forest Range, Gangavaram Section, he was placed under suspension along with other subordinate staff working under him, namely M.Palanivelu (Forest Ranger), J.Rajan (Forest Guard) and K.Muniswamy (Forest Watcher), on the charge that they have not prevented the laying of road in Paravadhamalai Reserve Forest, by which illicit blasting of stones has taken place, resulting in neglect of protecting the forest area.

(2.) A charge memo was issued against the petitioner and others, except Forest Guard, on 18.11.2003 and in respect of the Forest Guard, the charge memo was issued on 1.12.2003, all under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the charges were framed by the District Forest Officer, Tiruvannamalai on two grounds, viz., (i) the failure to prevent laying of road to the extent of 1900 Meters in the width of 7 to 10 Meters in the Paravadhamalai Forest Range from Pachayamman Temple to Veerabadrasamy Temple; and (ii) the failure to prevent blasting of stones effected in an area of one acre in Paravadhamalai forest range resulting in breaking of 13000 stones, which is a breach of the provisions of the Forest Act, 1980.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while a common enquiry was conducted and a common order was passed, while imposing punishment there has been discrimination shown and that discrimination itself is sufficient for this Court to interfere, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director General of Police and others v. G.Dasayan, [1998] 2 SCC 407. He would also submit that the first respondent/Appellate Authority has not traversed the various points raised by the petitioner and therefore, it should treated as one passed with total non application of mind.