The court upheld the penalty of pension cut and recovery of financial loss based on the proved charges, emphasizing the importance of following disciplinary procedures and assessing and recovering financial loss caused to the State by public servants.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the first respondent's order made in G.O (D).No.469 dated 27.12.2013, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle the entire DCRG benefits forthwith without any deduction.)

1. The order of punishment of cut in pension and the recovery of financial loss occurred to the State Exchequer is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Forester on 19.01.1978. He was promoted to the post of Ranger during the year 1989-1990 and retired from service without prejudice to the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on 30.11.2011.

3. A charge memo dated 07.02.2005 was issued against the writ petitioner with an allegation that, while handing over the charge on 24.04.1998 to the then Ranger Thiru R.Kulasekaran, there was a short fall of 321 pieces plus 1 gunny bag of chips of sandal wood and other allied charges were also framed that the petitioner had failed to hand over the materials regarding O.R.No.4 of 1988 and because of the said lapses, the successor has made an information to the authorities.

4. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry, affording opportunity to the delinquent authority. The charge contains details regarding the financial loss occurred to the State and the lapses committed by the writ petitioner by not handing over the sandal wood pieces. The allegation was that the petitioner has not handed over the charge to the successor official, which resulted in financial loss to the State Exchequer. The writ petitioner denied the charges and thus, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry. The successor officer Mr.R.Kulasekaran, deposed before the Enquiry Officer. He has clearly stated that he has taken charge from the writ petitioner on 24.04.1998 and the materials in connection with the cases were not handed over to him. As per the inventory, the writ petitioner Mr.J.Elango had not even handed over the Vehicles. The petitioner has not furnished the clear details regarding the sandal wood pieces with reference to the particular case and in respect of the cases registered by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

5. At the outset, it was deposed by the successor Forest Ranger that the petitioner had not handed over the charges with all such details relating to the case and about the sandal wood pieces and other items. Even on behalf of the delinquent, some staff members were examined by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer considered the materials available on record and also deposition of the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer arrived a conclusion that the petitioner has committed certain lapses by handing over the charge properly to the successor official, which resulted in financial loss in State Exchequer. Accordingly, held that all the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved.

6. The writ petitioner submitted his further objections on the enquiry report. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O(D)No.469 Environment and Forest Department dated 27.12.2013, imposing the penalty of cut in pension and further, imposed the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,32,766/- towards the financial loss caused to the State Exchequer. The said amount has been recovered from the gratuity of the writ petitioner and the balance amount is sought to be recovered by way of instalments from the pension.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there was a delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. The allegations set out against the writ petitioner was that he had not handed over the charge on 24.04.1998 to his successor Forest Ranger. However, the charge memo was issued in the year 2005 and by that