STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs. M SANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to review the order, dated 18.6.2009, made in W.P.No,2848 of 2007 and to dismiss the writ petition.

(2.) IT has been stated that the writ petitioner was working as a Forest Ranger, Afforestation Range, Tiruvannamalai. During the year, 1997-1998, he had executed the work of raising plantations over an area of 290 hectares in Periyakulam water shed area, under the Tamilnadu Afforestation Project. As per the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Social Forestry), Chennai, in Reference No.S2/15660/98, dated 2.3.1999, monitoring of the works was taken up by Mr.Amit Asthana, Deputy Conservator of Forests, from 6.1.1999 to 8.1.1999. In the inspection report, dated 22.1.1999, submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Chief Conservator of Forests, (Social Forestry), the details of short fall in planting seedlings had been highlighted. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Social Forestry), Chennai, in his reference, dated 22.1.1999, had instructed the Divisional Forest Officer, Afforestation Division, Tiruvannamalai, to take necessary action to recover the loss caused to the Government.

(3.) AFTER his retirement from service the petitioner had filed a petition before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A.No,401 of 2001. He had also obtained an order of interim stay against the proceedings of the Conservator of Forests, Vellore and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai. Thereafter, a draft charge sheet, under the relevant pension rules, had been prepared and submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai, and a copy of the same had been sent to the State Government. The State Government had issued certain directions, on 28.12.2004. Based on the undertaking given by the petitioner, on 15.2.2000, for the recovery of the amount due from him, from his death cum retirement gratuity, he was allowed to retire from service. The undertaking given by the petitioner is valid, as it would come under the contractual obligations between the employer and his employee.