A M SEKAR Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 34652 of 2005 was filed seeking to quash the proceedings dated 29.6.2004 of the second respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 22.9.2005, imposing the punishment of recovery of Rs. 18,312/- and further direction to refund the recovered amount. Writ Petition No. 34641 of 2005 was filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to include his name in the panel for promotion as Ranger for the year 2004-2005.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined as Forester in the Forest Department on 13.5.1981. His next promotion is Forest Ranger. While so, his name was deferred in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 2004-2005, by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 26.11.2004, on the ground that the department has initiated proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, in respect of illicit removal of 20500 babul trees in 1985 Allikulam Eri Thottam in the year 1995 at Arakonam Social Forestry Range and thereby, he caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 73,249/-. Thereafter, when he was asked to submit his explanations, he submitted a detailed reply dated 5.6.2003, stating that he was in no way responsible for the alleged loss, since those trees were cut during the period of his predecessors were there in the office, but not after he took charge at Wallaja Section on 1.7.1997. Further, he submitted that on 1.7.1997, when the petitioner was given additional charge of Wallaja Section, it was only three hundred trees standing in the said plantation given to the petitioner's control as additional charge and to that effect, he submitted a report to the Range Officer on 3.8.1987. Based on the said report submitted by the petitioner, the Range Officer also reported to the District Forest Officer stating that there were 300 trees only available in 1985 Allikulam Lake Plantation. Therefore, it was pleaded that, having accepted the report dated 3.8.1997 of the petitioner, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to impose a punishment of recovery against the petitioner. However, it is further pleaded that there is no record as on today to show that how many trees were standing when the petitioner took charge of Wallajah Section on 1.7.1997. Therefore, even though the petitioner has taken this point in his written explanation dated 5.6.2003, the respondents wrongly passed an order of punishment against the petitioner to pay the loss to the tune of Rs. 18,312/- and as a result, the petitioner, not only lost the said amount, but also loosing his promotion to the higher post of Ranger. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petitions, by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

(3.) In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by filing a detailed counter, submitted that at the time of taking charge by the petitioner, admittedly, there were 20400 babul trees found in the plantation. Subsequently, when most of the trees were found missing, the department initiated proceedings not only against the petitioner, but also against the Ranger Vinayakam. The said Ranger, who was incharge of that area, accepting the charges, paid 3/4th of the entire amount, which comes to Rs. 54,937/-, but, in the case of petitioner only 1/3rd of the entire amount was recovered. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the respondents have wrongly proceeded against the petitioner. Secondly, it was contended that when the Ranger has accepted the alleged charges by paying the recovery amount, it is not open to the petitioner, junior to the Ranger, to interfere with the impugned order of punishment.