Madras High Court
S.Rajendran vs The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... on 6 March, 2024
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
W.P.No.24964 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
W.P.No.24964 of 2011
S.Rajendran ....Petitioner
Vs
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
& Head of Forest Force,
Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai -15.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Athur Division, Athur, Salem District.
....Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the
first Respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.AB2/58367/2010 dated 12.05.2011 and
that the second Respondent in Aa.Thi.Mu.No.8474/05/U2 dated 10.11.2005
and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondents herein to
include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place of the panel for
promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2004-2005 and to promote him.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srihari
For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishnaraja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.24964 of 2011
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records on the file of the first Respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.AB2/58367/2010 dated 12.05.2011 and that the second Respondent in Aa.Thi.Mu.No.8474/05/U2 dated 10.11.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place of the panel for promotion as Forest Guards for the year 2004-2005 and to promote him.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner was appointed as Forest Plot Watcher on 28.09.1991 and allowed to stagnate in the said post even serving 20 years in the Forest Department. The only promotion post where he can be accommodated is the post of Forest Guard. He filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.27996 of 2006 seeking direction to quash the order of the District Forest Officer, Athur Division, Athur in proceedings Aa.Thi.Mu.No.8474/05/Pa.2 dated 10.11.2005 and for consequential direction to promote him as a Forest Guard with all consequential benefits. This Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent and first respondent was directed to consider and dispose the Writ Petition within a period of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 2 of 8 W.P.No.24964 of 2011 weeks from the date of personal hearing. Petitioner submitted his representation and he was personally heard on 29.04.2011. However, his representation and personal submissions were not properly considered and by an order dated 12.05.2011, his representation was rejected. The reason for rejecting is that, petitioner has not completed 10th standard and he has been imposed with various punishment and therefore his promotion cannot be considered. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is filed challenging the validity of the order passed by 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.AB2/58367/2010 dated 12.05.2011.
3. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, petitioner behaviour was erratic and unbecoming of a Government Servant from the year 1998 to 2003. He faced six disciplinary proceedings and he was imposed six punishments ranging from withholding of increment for one year to five years. Since, he was undergoing punishment from 1998 to 2014, he could not be promoted. That apart, petitioner had challenged only the proceedings of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Na.Ka.No.AB2/58367/2010 dated 12.05.2011. At the time of passing the order ie., on 12.05.2011, there were currency of punishment and the punishment got over only on 04.01.2015. In the said circumstances, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 3 of 8 W.P.No.24964 of 2011 petitioner's prayer for promotion was not considered.
4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is seen from the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, petitioner submitted his representation on 16.10.2005 stating that punishment imposed against him got over in the year 2004 and therefore, he has to be promoted as Forest Guard. While considering his representation, first respondent passed an order in Na.Ka.No.AB2/58367/2010 dated 12.05.2011 stating that petitioner has not completed 10th standard and that the punishment imposed against him from 01.07.1998 would get over only on 04.01.2015 and therefore his prayer seeking promotion cannot be considered. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that, petitioner faced six departmental proceedings resulting in imposition of punishments and the same is detailed here under:
Sl.No No. and Date Under Nature of Charges Nature of Effect of of Charge Rule 17(a) Punishment Punishme Sheet or (b) nt
1. DFO, Attur 17(a) Neglect of duty by Next increment 01.07.1998 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 4 of 8 W.P.No.24964 of 2011 Sl.No No. and Date Under Nature of Charges Nature of Effect of of Charge Rule 17(a) Punishment Punishme Sheet or (b) nt C.No.3172/90 failure to protect postponed for five to D2 dated the unreserved years without 30.06.2003 19.08.1997 compensation land cumulative effect S.No.597/2 and vide SFO, Attur 598/1 of Chinna – proceedings Kalrayan No.3172/90 D2 Theerkunadu dated 07.10.1997 Village by allowing for-ming road during 1995 without Government Order
2. DFO Attur 17(a) Allowing private Next increment 01.07.2003 C.No.6422/97 tractors through the postponed for two to D1 dated: RF on 13.08.1997 years without 30.06.2005 03.10.1997 during the field cumulative effect Inspection of CF, vide DFO, Attur Salem. proceedings No.6422/98 D1 dated 03.10.1997
3. DFO, Attur 17(a) Deliberately Next increment 01.07.2005 C.No.2204/98 Absent from duty postponed for two to E2 on 05.08.98 years without 30.06.2007 dated:22.04.98 cumulative effect vide DFO, Attur proceedings No.2204/98 E2 dated: 10.05.1998
4. DFO, Attur 17(a) Behaving Next increment 01.07.2007 C.No.2380/98 indifferently with postponed for five to E2 dated Kalrayan Range years without 30.06.2012 22.04.93\8 staff by abusing cumulative effect them by using vide DFO, Attur unparliamentary proceedings words while on No.2380/98 E2 duty on 26.03.1998 dated 18.05.1998 to 09.00 PM
5. DFO Attur, 17(b) 1. Unauthorized Next increment 01.07.2012 C.No.1638/01 absence from duty postponed for one to E2 dated on 21.01.2001 year without 30.06.2013 16.04.2001 2. Not obeying the cumulative effect https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 5 of 8 W.P.No.24964 of 2011 Sl.No No. and Date Under Nature of Charges Nature of Effect of of Charge Rule 17(a) Punishment Punishme Sheet or (b) nt orders of superiors vide DFO, Attur
3.Preventing the proceedings Officials from No.1638/01 E2 performing their dated 28.02.2002 Government duy.
4.On 21.01.2001
intoxicated and
scolded the
officials and public
with
unparliamentary
words in
Karumanthurai
Bus Stand.
6. DFO, Attur 17(a) Negligence of duty Next increment 01.07.2013
C.No.2350/03 by absenting postponed for one to
E2 dated himself from years without 30.06.2014
22.04.2003 03.04.2003 without cumulative effect
submitting any vide DFO, Attur
application for proceedings
leave No.2350/03 E2
dated 15.05.2003
With regard to the qualification of a pass in 10th Standard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules Proviso [iii], it is stated that, “ provided that this qualification shall not be applicable to the Forest Watchers and Malis who were appointed from the category of Social Forestry Workers and Malis who were appointed from the category of Social Forestry Workers and Plot Watchers”. Assuming as per this rule, petitioner is not required to have a pass in 10th Standard, from the counter https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 6 of 8 W.P.No.24964 of 2011 affidavit, it is clear that, petitioner had suffered six punishments. He has not challenged any of these punishments. Even after the punishment imposed in the year 2005, he faced four more departmental enquiries and suffered four punishments from 2005 to 2014. From the year 1998 to 2014, he was facing one or other departmental enquiries resulting in imposition of punishments. Since, he has not challenged any of these punishments, it is not open to him to say that he was victimized by his superiors. When he submitted his representation, there was punishment in force. Subsequent punishments were also continuously in force till 2014. In the said circumstances, his representation seeking promotion was rightly rejected by the 1st respondent. Thus, this Court finds no merits in this petition.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
06.03.2024 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Sma G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J Sma https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 7 of 8 W.P.No.24964 of 2011 To
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai -15.
2. The District Forest Officer, Athur Division, Athur, Salem District.
W.P.No.24964 of 2011
06.03.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ________ Page 8 of 8