S VELLASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT the said Thiru S. Vellaisamy , Forest Range Officer, has worked in Rajapalayam Range of Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur from 12. 7. 1995 forenoon to 12. 11. 1996. During his tenure, a special party headed by Trichi Circle Conservator of Forests, has destroyed illicit ganja cultivation over an extent of 9. 3 acres in prime forest land in 3 locations (i. e.) Mudavankavu , Vellakallatheri and Moongil Pannal area on 16. 10. 1996 and 17. 10. 1996. The age of Ganja plants destroyed ranges from 1 month to 4 months and height of them ranges from two feet to 5" feet having worth of Rs. 13 crores. Charge No. 2: THAT during the above said period and while functioning in the above said Office, the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest protection Squad, Tirunelveli has listed out the felling as detailed below: Fellings 1. Mudavankavu Bit-I 12 Nos. 2. Mudavankavu Bit-II 13 Nos. 3. Vellakkaltheri 34 Nos. 4. Moongilpannaikadu Saragam 38 Nos. "thus there is dereliction of duty on his part. "

(2.) THE petitioner has submitted his explanation on 16. 1. 1998. According to him, the first charge was not specific and it amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. As far as the second charge is concerned, which relates to the felling of trees on four places, he denied the same on the ground that he was not responsible for the same and only the'protective staffs'viz. Foresters and Forest Guards under whose control the entire forest area lies, were responsible. Moreover, during that time, one of the Forest guard was murdered and the same had created panic. An enquiry officer was appointed. THE enquiry officer found that Charge No. 1 framed against the petitioner was proved. However, in respect of Charge No. 2, which relates to the felling up of trees in four places, the enquiry officer held that only in respect of one place, viz. Vellakkaltheri , the charge was proved and in respect of other three places, the charges were dropped.

(3.) 1. Mr. S. James , learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that identical charges were framed against the Forest Officers, starting from District Forest Officer, Forest guards and Forest Watcher, in respect of the same incident. It is his contention that even on the same charge in respect of one R. G. S. Natarajan , deputy Conservator of Forest , who is above the rank of the petitioner, the respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of three months with cumulative effect. The petitioner, being the next rank as Ranger, was imposed with a maximum punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. 4. 2. He would also submit that in respect of one Rajagopal , Forester, under whom the area was in effective control, viz. , the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal reduced the punishment to stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Likewise, one M. Selvaraj , the next person in the grade, viz. Forest Guard, when approached this Court by filing W. P. No. 39801 of 2005 against the identical charges framed against him, this Court, by order dated 19. 4. 2006, quashed the said charges and also set aside the punishment. 4. 3. Again in respect of another person K. Murthy, Forest guard, against whom also the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was originally passed, the same was subsequently modified as stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, as per the proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated 30. 6. 2004. The said order of the Principal Chief Conservation of Forests was based on the order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 11. 12. 2003 made in O. A. Nos. 3857 of 2002 and 3891 of 2003. 4. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the punishment has been either reduced or set aside in respect of other persons who are either above the rank or below the rank of the petitioner, it is inequitable that the petitioner alone suffers the maximum punishment of three increments with cumulative effect. 5. 1. The respondents filed the counter affidavit. While the factual situation about the parties is not denied by the respondent, it is the case of the respondent that the punishment was awarded based on the gravity of the nature of the charges and grade of the persons employed in the department. 5. 2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that while the respondent had passed uniform orders in respect of all the persons, it is they who have approached either the tribunal or this Court and got reduced the punishments either by the order of the Tribunal or by this Court, and therefore, it is not correct to contend that the respondents have imposed unequal punishment to the Forest Officials.