Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Mohan Kumar D Ifs vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 8 July, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00026/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00026/2024
DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF JULY, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Sri. Mohan Kumar D, IFS,
Working as Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Hassan Division,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at:
#DCF Quarters, Aranya Bhavan Campus,
Near Dairy Circle, BM Road,
Hassan - 573 201. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Shishira Amarnath)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions,
North Block, Sardar Patel Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Services-V)
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
mikasha suneja
mikashaCAT Bangalore
2025.07.16
suneja +05'30'
15:26:23
2
OA.No.170/00026/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Deputy Secretary,
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Services - V)
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. Under Secretary,
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Services - V)
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
5. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
(Head of Forest Force)
Aranya Bhavan, Sankey Tank, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru - 560 012. ...Respondents
(By Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent
No.1 and Advocate Shri M. Rajakumar for Respondents
No. 2 to 5.)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure - A12) issued by Respondent No.4 by which the applicant was suspended from the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF), Hassan Division, Hassan.
2. The applicant was suspended on 29.12.2023. By the interim order of the Court, he was re-instated earlier.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.07.16 suneja +05'30' 15:26:23 3 OA.No.170/00026/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The counsel for applicant draws attention towards the report of Preliminary Enquiry dated 20.07.2024. The finding of the enquiry are:-
"Finding of the Enquiry:
The Committee notes the land in question is not a forestland. This being so, the land in question is not in the direct control of the forest officials. As a result, the forest officials were not expected to conduct any routine patrol of this land.
This being so, the forest officials were expected to act largely on complaint received. Available records indicate that they did act and initiated action, soon after they received a complaint.
The Committee finds that the Forest officers have taken immediate action to book the Forest offence case, as per the Law, immediately after receiving the information from the Tehsildar and have seized all the timber, billets, Firewood, Hitachi, Tractor Trailer and Power chain saws. The seized materials have been immediately transported to the GTD, Hassan depot and subsequently put up the seized material for auction. Large fraction of the seized material has been sold as well.
They have also proceeded with the investigation and have arrested the accused persons, recorded their statements and released them on Station-Bail. It is also noted that as per Supreme Court guidelines/order, offenders, in this kind of offence, need to be released in Station-Bail [AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2756 Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar).
Hence, the Committee opines that in the entire issue, all the forest officials i.e. Forest Guard, Dy RFO, RFO, ACF and DCF have acted as per the law.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.07.16 suneja +05'30' 15:26:23 4 OA.No.170/00026/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Available records exhibit that these officials have promptly initiated action as soon as they received the complaint. Thus, no lapse can be attributed to the forest officials in the entire issue."
4. It appears from the aforesaid findings that the Deputy RFO, RFO, ACF and DCF were involved in the case. The applicant was holding the post of DCF. The counsel for applicant pointed out that the other officers except the applicant have been re-instated by the order of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Upon enquiry, it is admitted by the respondents counsel that the Government did not challenge the aforesaid order and issued the re-instatement order.
5. The preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 20.07.2024. Still no any further decision has been taken by the Government upon the aforesaid enquiry report. It is orally submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the enquiry report is pending before the "Minister". It appears that about one year has passed but any decision has not been taken.
6. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid all situations, without going into other controversy, it can be said that the applicant is entitled to the same relief upon the ground of "parity" and the suspension order is liable to be quashed.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.07.16 suneja +05'30' 15:26:23 5 OA.No.170/00026/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
7. Hence, OA is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure - A12) is hereby quashed.
8. The Government is free to take appropriate decision upon the enquiry report.
9. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikasha suneja
mikashaCAT Bangalore
2025.07.16
suneja +05'30'
15:26:23