T. PARAMASIVAM Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent in Reference No. T1/55975/94, dated 30.04.1997 and by the second respondent in G.O. (3D) No. 75, Environment and Forest (B9A) Department, dated 27.12.2011 with a prayer to quash the same. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined the Forest Department in the year 1976 as a Watcher. He was promoted as Forest Guard in the year 1983 and he was due for promotion to the post of Forester in the year 1998, but due to pending disciplinary proceedings, he had not been promoted. The petitioner was serving as Forest Guard in Vappadi Palakkode beat of Attur Range in Salem District.

(2.) Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would mainly contend that there is unexplained delay in every stage, i.e., from the issue of charge memo till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings and passing of the impugned orders. It is contended that the respondents have not come forward with reasonable and probable explanation for such delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident is said to have taken place during the year 1984, whereas, the charge memo was issued only on 10.05.1989. The disciplinary proceedings commenced in the year 1987 and completed only on 29.05.1995. It is further submitted that even after the same, the enquiry report was submitted only on 19.06.1995 and the first respondent passed the order only on 30.04.1997 inflicting the punishment of reduction to the bottom time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect from 01.06.1997.

(3.) It is further contended that there is also delay in the disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner as the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 21.08.1997 was rejected only on 26.03.2003. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that in view of such inordinate delay, in initiation, commencement and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and further in disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner has been prejudiced and the entire disciplinary proceedings is vitiated and thereby the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the two similar proceedings initiated against the very same petitioner, orders of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect were passed, and challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 6688 of 2006 and 20507 of 2007 and the same were allowed by this Court by orders dated 08.12.2010 and 06.06.2011 respectively and this Court set aside the impugned orders of punishment.