Disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose penalties based on misconduct, and courts should only interfere when such penalties are grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent issued in Letter No. 6368/Va.1/09-16 dated 13.10.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction all the petitioner’s retirement benefits and full pension with interest as fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Forester during April, 1981 and was promoted as Ranger in the year 2005. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Conservator of Forests, Dindigul, vide order dated 28.11.2006 on the allegation of financial irregularity involving misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs.3,52,048/- in the departmental works in the Korankombu Village of Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project, Integrated Tribal Development Program component in Kannivadi Forest Range and a sum of Rs.62,113/- in the departmental work in Senkattampatti RF of RSVY project in Kannivadi Forest Range and thereafter a charge sheet dated 09.05.2007 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the District Forest Officer.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter vide order dated 18.09.2007, suspension order was revoked by the respondents and the petitioner was allotted to Nelakottai Range of Mudumalai Wildflife Sanctuary Division and after enquiry, the respondent passed order of punishment dated 08.07.2008 reverting the petitioner as Forester for 1 – ½ years from 15.07.2008 and during the said period, the petitioner’s pay was fixed in the cadre of Forester in basic level at Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Government and got order of stay on 24.07.2008. The petitioner filed a writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The said appeal was dismissed vide proceedings in GO.(D) No.76, Environment & Forests (F-1) Department dated 26.02.2009. The petitioner has approached this Court again by way of filing the writ petition aggrieving against the orders passed by the Government in the statutory appeal and the said writ petition was allowed and the orders passed in the statutory appeal were set aside and a direction was given to consider the matter afresh and thereby the matter was remanded back to the Government.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service without prejudice to pending appeal. Without deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Government passed order vide G.O(3D) No.65, Environment & Forest (FR1) Department dated 12.10.2010, wherein, the second respondent has set aside the order issued by the first respondent dated 08.07.2008, restored the charge memo issued under 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules and decided to proceed under the Pension Rules. Thereby, the impugned letter was issued by the second respondent, deciding to recover the DCRG amount of Rs.3,68,102/- from the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is not only responsible for the alleged loss and the project in