In disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible, and interference is warranted only if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 110. 1998 of the District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil, by which a sum of Rs.46,679/- was directed to be recovered at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, the first installment being at Rs.1,679/-.

2. The petitioner is a Forester. On 23.01.1995, the District Conservator of Forests received an anonymous petition dated 112. 1994 to the effect that valuable trees had been cut and removed. The District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari Division conducted an enquiry on the anonymous petition and found that the allegations were baseless. Subsequently, on the basis of some discreet enquiry conducted by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, the petitioner was suspended from service in December 1995 by the respondent, alleging that he was responsible for illegal felling of 21 trees. A charge memo was served on the petitioner in January 1998, for which, he had submitted an explanation. The Assistant Conservator of Forests (Head Quarters), District Forest Office, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil was appointed as Enquiry Officer and three witnesses were examined. On the enquiry report dated 18.05.1998, the petitioner submitted his further representation and without considering his defence in proper perspective, the respondent has inflicted a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also directed recovery of sum of Rs.46,679/-at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.1,679/- as first instalment.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that the allegations contained in the anonymous petition dated 112. 1994 was already enquired into by the District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari Division and when the same was found to be false, the matter has been once again proceeded by the Assistant Conservator of Forests (Head Quarters), Kanyakumari Division after two years. The petitioner has further submitted that without conducting any spot inspection and locating the trees alleged to have been cut during his tenure, the Enquiry Officer, has erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the illegal felling and therefore, the finding is without any basis, liable to be set aside.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that the area in which the trees were alleged to have been illegally cut and removed falls within Kaani residential area, coming under Mugilodi Range and 24 Forest cases were registered by the Forest Guard Mr.Mohamed Haneefa and therefore, the petitioner and the Beat Guards were vigilant in preventing illicit felling of trees and they have taken adequate action to preserve and conserve the forest produce. For the above said reasons, the petitioner has prayed to quash the penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and the recovery ordered by the respondent.

5. The respondent, in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner had worked as Forester in Kanyakumari Division, Kulasekaram Section from 310. 1992 to 08.01.1996. During his tenure in the above station, he was suspended from service, as per District Forest Officers proceedings dated 212. 1995. He was lateron reinstated in service on 31.07.1996, as per the order dated 31.07.1996. Subsequently, he was allotted to Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, Ramanathapuram. The Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Protection Squad sent a report dated 09.02.1995, bringing to the notice of the Conservator of Forests, Wild Life Southern Region about the illegal felling of two teak and 8 Ayini trees in the forest range, where the petitioner had earlier worked and on the basis of the same, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. The respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was suspended for illegal felling of 23 teakwood and rose wood trees and also for unauthorized stacking of 73 logs in Thottamalai and Valayamthucki area in February 1995. The respondent has denied the contention that the petitioner