Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4632 (MAD)

D. Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2010-10-21

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was a Forest Guard. He was issued with a charge sheet vide District Forest Officers Ref.No.E2/6118/97, dated 07.11.1997 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Since the Disciplinary Proceeding was pending, the petitioner was not included in the panel of Forest Guard fit for promotion to the post of Forester for the year 2000-2001. 3. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5616 of 2000 (W.P.No.40876 of 2006) praying for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners name for the year 2000-2001 panel for promotion to the post of Forester notwithstanding the pendency of Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1973. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit in 2007, stating that still the Disciplinary Proceeding was pending. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in T.A.No.118 of 1999 (W.P.No.7048 of 1999), the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order dated 07.02.2002, directing the respondents to pass final orders on the Disciplinary Proceedings in the charge sheet vide District Forest Officers Ref.No.E2/6118/97, dated 07.11.1997, as early as possible. 6. When, the 17(b) proceeding was pending, the petitioner could not be included in the panel. The petitioner could not ask for to consider his name notwithstanding the pendency of the 17(b) Proceeding. At the same time, the respondents could not keep the 17(b) Proceeding for such a long time. In spite of the order dated 07.02.2002 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in T.A.No.118 of 1999 (W.P.No.7048 of 1999), directing the respondents to pass final orders on the Disciplinary Proceeding as early as possible, the counter affidavit was filed by the respondents in 2007 stating that still the Disciplinary Proceeding was pending. It is a sorry state of affairs. The inclusion of the petitioner in the panel for the year 2000-2001 depends on the out come of the Disciplinary Proceeding. 7. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to complete the Disciplinary Proceeding that arises out of charge sheet vide District Forest Officers Ref.No.E2/6118/97, dated 07.11.1997, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to complete the Disciplinary Proceeding that arises out of charge sheet vide District Forest Officers Ref.No.E2/6118/97, dated 07.11.1997, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the Disciplinary Proceeding is not over within 12 weeks, as directed above, further direction is issued to the respondents to include the petitioner in the panel for the year 2000-2001 irrespective of the out come of the Disciplinary Proceeding and the petitioner has to be promoted as Forester from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted on notional basis. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.