Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1472 (MAD)

M. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-03-26

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner's father late J.Munisamy died on 26.10.1983, while in service as Forest Guard, at Hosur Range. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as Forest Guard at Hosur Range vide order dated 05.10.1989 on compassionate ground. 2. The petitioner joined duty on 20.10.1989. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.12.1989, on contemplated enquiry, based on the report of the Forest Range Officer. 3. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 04.01.1990. The allegation against petitioner was that while he was posted as Guard at the Sandal Woods godown at Denkanikottai on 23.12.1989 night along with one Jayaraman, an attempt was made to commit theft of 12 sandal woods connected with STOR No.5 of 1985-86 and 2/86-87, which was detected by the Co-Guard Jayaraman. 4. The petitioner denied charges levelled against him, and also requested for the copy of statement of Forest Range Officer, Denkanikottai. The petitioner thereafter was served with notice of enquiry, to be held on 31.01.1990 at 11:00 a.m. 5. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted his explanation to the charges. 6. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 26.03.1990, on the ground that the petitioner had confessed his guilt before the Forest Range Officer on 28.12.1989. 7. The appeal filed by petitioner against the order of punishment was also dismissed on 05.10.1990. 8. The petitioner submits that the order of removal, being a non speaking order, cannot be sustained in law. 9. The order of removal is also challenged on the ground that enquiry conducted against petitioner was not proper, and further that the appellate authority also confirmed the order without discussing the law and evidence. 10. It is also the submission of petitioner, that the statement alleged to have been given by petitioner before the Forest Range Officer, Denkanikottai, was not furnished to petitioner, even though he had asked for supply of the copy to defend himself before the enquiry officer. 11. It is also the submission of petitioner that the enquiry officer did not examine any witness to prove charges, but relied upon a telegram sent by one Ramesh, and alleged confessional statement of petitioner. The telegram was fictitious, therefore, could not be relied upon to hold petitioner guilty. 12. The case of petitioner further is that the confessional statement was not voluntary. 13. The telegram was fictitious, therefore, could not be relied upon to hold petitioner guilty. 12. The case of petitioner further is that the confessional statement was not voluntary. 13. In sum and substance, contention is that enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, and also against statutory rules. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the enquiry was not conducted as per the statutory rule, as witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. 15. Not only this, the enquiry officer, after recording the statement of witnesses and defense statement, did not submit the enquiry report, but only sent the statement of witnesses to the competent authority. 16. The reading of the proceedings of the enquiry officer clearly show that the enquiry has not been conducted as per the rules. Furthermore, enquiry officer also did not submit any enquiry report. In absence of enquiry report, it was not possible for the competent authority to pass an impugned order. 17. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law, being based on enquiry conducted in violation of principle of natural justice, as also against the statutory rules. The petitioner was not even supplied the copy of report on which reliance was placed by competent authority. The order of the competent authority as also appellate authority deserves to be set aside, being arbitrary and against statutory rules, as in absence of enquiry report, it was not possible to pass order of punishment. 18. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside, and the case is remitted back to the enquiry officer, to hold enquiry fresh in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 17(b) and submit enquiry report on the charges, to the competent authority. The competent authority shall thereafter proceed as per rules, and pass appropriate orders. 19. No costs.