R RAJENDRAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of compulsory retirement invoking Rule 56 (2) of the Fundamental Rules is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner joined service in September, 1978 as Forester. In course of time, he was promoted as Forest Ranger and functioning as such since from the year 2000. The petitioner was transferred and posted as Ranger in Periyakulam Range. The specific averment of the petitioner is that on 13. 8. 2004 he had reported about the illicit felling of teakwood trees suspecting one amongst the forest officials and involvement of some influential persons in the political field. On the basis of his complaint, a criminal case has been registered and warrant had been issued to arrest 20 accused persons, including two "politically influential" persons. The case of the petitioner is that, in order to avoid the petitioner in such place, he was placed under suspension on 25. 8. 2004 on the ground that "grave charges" against the petitioner were contemplated. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 24756 of 2004 challenging such order of suspension and an order of stay was passed on 31. 8. 2004 and the matter was directed to be listed on 1. 9. 2004. On 1. 9. 2004, in the counter affidavit filed in such writ petition, it was indicated that the District Forest Officer of Kodaikanal Division, under whom the petitioner was working as a Ranger, has reported about the illegal felling of teak and other trees. It was also reported that one Forest guard was beaten by the petitioner. A Committee had been constituted by the Assistant Conservator of Forests and such Committee reported about the illegal activities of the petitioner and therefore, it was recommended that the petitioner should be placed under suspension as an enquiry into "grave charges" against him was contemplated. However, subsequently on 10. 9. 2004, such suspension was revoked by the Conservator of Forests with immediate effect, because such suspension order was stayed by the High Court and charge-sheet was yet to be filed. On 11. 9. 2004, an order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Government and such order was affixed to the house of the petitioner on 12. 9. 2004 itself. It is also indicated by the petitioner that the order of revocation of suspension was also so pasted on the very same date. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed as a measure of punishment with a view to avoid any departmental enquiry. It was the specific stand of the Government in the writ petition relating to suspension that an enquiry into "grave charges" were contemplated. It is further indicated that even though the purported order of compulsory retirement is based on records pertaining to January 2003 to June 2003, the petitioner has not been subjected to any punishment, and the order of compulsory retirement has been passed without application of mind. It has been further indicated that apart from the fact that the petitioner had earlier been suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, he was also facing two other disciplinary proceedings, one under Rule 17 (b) dated 22. 12. 2003 and the other under Rule 17 (a) dated 11. 8. 2004 and even without finding the petitioner guilty, an order of compulsory retirement is passed as a short-cut to avoid departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that such order has been passed only because the petitioner was instrumental in initiating criminal case and obtaining warrants from the Court of Magistrate against several persons, including "politically influential" persons.

(3.) A counter affidavit to by the Deputy Secretary to the Government has been filed. In such counter affidavit it has been described as if it is by the first respondent i. e. , Secretary to the Government. In such counter affidavit reference has been made to letter dated 19. 8. 2004 issued by the District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal Division indicating about several complaints against the petitioner and the incident relating to the alleged beating of one Muniappan, a Forest Watcher. It has been indicated: