Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4365 (MAD)

S. Mohamed Haniffa v. The Conservator of Forests

2010-09-29

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was a Forest Guard. The District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari issued a charge sheet under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules on 26.12.1997 alleging that the petitioner failed to prevent illicit felling and removing of valuable trees from Kulasekaram South Beat. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.06.1998 denying the charges. The District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari came to the conclusion that there was a loss of Rs.93,358/- and he directed recovery of Rs.46,679/- being the 50% of the total value of the missing trees, in his order dated 15.10.1998. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal on 10.12.1998 to the respondent. Thereafter, he filed an Original Application in O.A.No.88 of 1999 seeking disposal of the appeal dated 10.12.1998 made by the petitioner. The Tribunal passed an order dated 17.02.1999 directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal and to keep recovery in abeyance. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 07.08.1999 confirming the order of the District Forest Officer. 3. The petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5445 of 2000 (W.P.No.44191 of of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 07.08.1999 of the respondent. 4. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. 5. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Kirubanandhan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer did not touch the point relating to the felling of trees. Infact, the same was accepted by the respondent. Having accepted that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the point as to whether the allegation of not preventing the felling of trees was established or not, there was no justification to order for recovery. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer concentrated mainly on the issue that the petitioner failed to accompany the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Protection Squad, Tirunelveli, for enumeration without touching the point that arose for his consideration. The learned counsel also took me through the appellate order, in this regard. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner furthermore submits that the Tribunal granted interim order while admitting the Original Application. The petitioner also retried long back. Hence, he prays for quashing the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel also took me through the appellate order, in this regard. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner furthermore submits that the Tribunal granted interim order while admitting the Original Application. The petitioner also retried long back. Hence, he prays for quashing the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the recovery order. Since there was felling of trees, 50% of the value of the missing of the tree alone was sought to be recovered. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The following passage from the impugned order is extracted here-under: "The Enquiry Officer has concluded that the charges are proved as the staff when called for to accompany the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Protection Squad, Tirunelveli to forest for enumeration did not accompany the party which shows the irresponsibility of the staff. The Enquiry Oficer has not touched the point of proving the fellings. The list of O.Rs given by the Forester on 04.02.1998 has not also been correlated. In the enquiry the Forester who has enumerated the list has said that the date of enumeration could not be remembered after lapse of 3 years of enumeration. The statement of the Forester was recorded during the enquiry." 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has recorded that the Enquiry Officer did not touch the point of proving the fellings. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also correct in his statement that the Enquiry Officer concentrated more about the non-accompanying by petitioner with the Forester for enumeration. That could not be the reason for ordering recovery. Hence, the recovery order is liable to be quashed. 12. Further, the Tribunal granted stay of recovery and stay is in operation for 10 years. Furthermore, the petitioner retired from service long back. 13. Taking into account, all the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.