I have heard Ms.Selvi George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Titus Jesudas, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondent and have perused the records.

2. The petitioner is working as a Forester at the Manoumboly Range. The impugned order is a charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. The petitioner was accused of inaction when large number of trees were felled down in the name of pruning them. He did not adhere to the guidelines issued in respect of private Forests.

3. The ground of attack is that the allegation is made malafide and without basis. Ms.Selvi George, learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the voluminous typed set to prove her point that the charge levelled against the petitioner was baseless. Further, she stated that in respect of a private forest, no responsibility lies with her client and if at all, it is the responsibility of the Forest Committee and her client is not a member of the Committee. She also stated that as per various communication of the Department, a Forester cannot be responsible for tree felling in a private Forest. She also submitted that against the order of transfer of the petitioner, she came to this Court in W.P.No.20981 of 2006 and successfully quashed it and this had given rise to the present charge memo which is a vendetta.

4. The respondent had filed a detailed counter affidavit and had refuted all the allegations and stated that the petitioner must face an enquiry and prove his innocence.

.5. This Court is unable to countenance the attack made by the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to prove his innocence in the enquiry to be held against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the defence put up by the petitioner and convert it into a domestic enquiry forum.

.6. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in 1987 (2) SCC 179 [State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another] dealt with the power of the Court in dealing with a memo at the show cause stage and the following passage found in paragraph 9 will make the position clear.

.Para 9: "The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice."

7. Further, in 1996 (3) SCC 157 [Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department v. L.Srinivasan], the Supreme Court has also pulled up the member of the Administrative Tribunal for having interfered with the charge memo as if the Tribunal is an appellate authority. The following passage found in paragraph 3 of the said judgment makes the position very clear.

Para 3: "We are informed that charge-sheet was laid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlement and fabrication of false records etc. and that the offences and the trial of the case is pending. ... we desist from expressing any opinion on merit or recording any of the contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of t