Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 723
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
Ramarajan – Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman cum Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd. and Another – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 5814 of 2021, W.M.P. (MD) No. 4568 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2024
dvocate Appeared :
For the Petitioner: K.P. Narayanakumar.
For the Respondents: D. Sasikumar, A.K. Manikkam.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's stand, conducting a proper enquiry, and strictly adhering to the Forest Department Code in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Forest Department Code - Recovery of Financial Loss - Section 143 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Department Code - G.O. No. 1, dated 03.01.1994 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 143 of the Forest Department Code, which provides for recovery of financial loss caused due to irregularities. The court highlighted the lack of consideration of the petitioner's explanation and the failure to conduct an enquiry before imposing the punishment and ordering recovery. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the Forest Department Code and the requirement to provide all reasonable opportunities for the petitioner to defend himself.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Field Assistant, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for the shortage of trees in a forest coupe. The petitioner's explanation was not considered, and the punishment of postponement of increment by one year without cumulative effect and recovery of an amount from the petitioner's salary was imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders passed by the respondents were not sustainable under law due to the lack of consideration of the petitioner's stand and the absence of an enquiry. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to afford the petitioner a personal hearing and to consider the observations made by the court.
Issues: Failure to consider petitioner's explanation, lack of enquiry before imposing punishment and ordering recovery, deviation from Forest Department Code, and lack of clarity on the liability of other officers involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's stand, conducting a proper enquiry, and strictly adhering to the Forest Department Code. The court also highlighted the need to provide all reasonable opportunities for the petitioner to defend himself.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, with the court emphasizing the need to afford the petitioner a personal hearing and to consider the observations made by the court.
JUDGMENT :
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining the proceeding of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No. Se. Mu. Aa. No. P2/11802/18-3 dated 14.10.2019, confirmed by the order of the 1st respondent in proceedings No. CH-1/2020 dated 02.12.2020 and quash the same as erroneous and illegal and direct the 2nd respondent to repay the amount recovered from the petitioner's salary pursuant to the impugned order from November, 2019.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No. 2 in proceedings in Se. Mu. Aa. No. P2/11802/18-3, dated 14.10.2019, as confirmed by Respondent No. 1 in Proc. No. Ch-1/2020, dated 02.12.2020, imposing the punishment of postponement of increment by one year without cumulative effect and ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,91,100/- from the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The brief facts, that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are as under:
2.1. The 2nd respondent conducted auction sale in respect of 757 rubber trees in Bit No. III of Coupe No. 26A on 21.02.2018 and sale was confirmed in favour of one Thiru S. Lawrence at the rate of Rs. 3,765/- per tree. Accordingly, the said Contractor entered into an agreement on 28.05.2018 and the Divisional Manager, Manalodai Division had issued order for cutting and removal of trees to the Contractor on 28.06.2018. Accordingly, the Contractor had felled 253 rubber trees in first strip, thereby leaving a balance of 504 tress. But the said Contractor made a complaint on 31.07.2018 alleging that there is shortage of trees in Strips 2 and 3 of Coupe No. 26A and accordingly, re-enumeration of trees in Strips 2 and 3 of Bit No. III of Coupe No. 26A was conducted and it was found that there are only 442 trees including 49 broken stumps. Thus, there is shortage of 111 trees out of 504 trees. However, the Contractor has come forward to pay for the 400 trees out of 504 trees and therefore, the petitioner, who was working as Field Assistant, the Field Officer concerned and the Divisional Manager were subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memos.
2.2. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the loss suffered by Respondent No. 2 to an extent of 35% should not be recovered from the petitioner while proposing to recover the balance amount in the ratio of 25% and 40% from the Divisional Manager and the Field Officer in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1, Environmental and Forest Department, dated 03.01.1994. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation contending that the original enumeration of the trees was conducted in the month of January, 2018 and thereafter auction notice was issued on 21.02.2018 in the absence of the petitioner, as he was working at the relevant time in different division and was transferred to the Manalodai Division only on 07.05.2018 and therefore, he cannot be made responsible for the shortage of trees and it is necessary to verify with the Field Assistant, who was working at the relevant point of time.
2.3. The petitioner also contended that the agreement was entered into with the Contractor on 28.05.2018 and any shortage of trees is to be reported by the Contractor within seven days from the date of agreement in terms of the said agreement. But no such complaint was made within the time and it is only belatedly after cutting 253 trees, the Contractor made a complaint on 31.07.2018. The petitioner also contended that the coupe in question was allotted to the petitioner only on 23.05.2018 and thus, there is long gap between the date of enumeration in the month of January and the date of handing over the coupe to the petitioner. Therefore, he requested Respondent No. 2 to consider the said aspects. Though through the show cause notice, it was proposed to recover 35% of the loss from the petitioner in terms of G.O. No. 1, dated 03.01.1994, in
