Madras High Court
The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... vs M.Moosa on 2 August, 2021
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja, V.Sivagnanam
W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.07.2021
PRONOUNCED ON :02.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 (03 Nos)
and M.P.Nos.2 of 2011 (02 Nos)
W.A.No.2223 of 2011:
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-15. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.M.Moosa
Proprietor
Glowdie Trage Wings
No.7, 5th Avenue
Chetpet, Chennai - 600 037.
2.The Additional District Judge
Fast Track Court No.III
Tiruvallur. ... Respondents
W.A.No.2224 of 2011:
1.The District Collector
Tiruvallur.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011
2.The District Forest Officer
Chengalpattu Division
Kancheepuram. ... Appellants
-vs-
M.Moosa
Proprietor
Glowdie Trage Wings
No.7, 5th Avenue
Chetpet, Chennai - 600 037. ... Respondent
W.A.No.2225 of 2011:
1.The District Forest Officer
Chengalpattu Division
Kancheepuram.
2.The District Forest Officer
Tiruvallur Division
Tiruvallur. ... Appellants
-vs-
M.Moosa
Proprietor
Glowdie Trage Wings
No.7, 5th Avenue
Chetpet, Chennai - 600 037. ... Respondent
(The 1st respondent in W.A.No.2223 of 2011 and the sole respondent in
W.A.Nos.2224 and 2225 of 2011 were substituted vide order of this Court
dated 28.08.2019 in C.M.P.Nos.16605, 16607 and 16608 of 2019.)
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
Act to set aside the orders dated 06.06.2011 made in W.P.Nos.25895, 25107
and 19105 of 2009.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011
In all the W.A's:-
For Appellants : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate (Forest)
For R1 : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
For R2 : Court
COMMON JUDGMENT
(V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,) The Writ Appeals,
(i) W.A.No.2223 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2011 in W.P.No.25895 of 2009. The Writ Petitioner is Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who filed the above Writ Petition to set aside the Judgment of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court no.III, Tiruvallur, in C.A.No.36 of 2007 dated 04.08.2009.
(ii) W.A.No.2224 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.25107 of 2007, wherein, the petitioner-Anu Ambraile, Proprietrix of A.A.Impex, challenged the order of the District Collector, Tiruvallur, dated 29.01.2007, holding that a part of the order of the District Forest Officer, dated 16.03.2004, is not valid, with regard to 3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 cancellation of registration mark by the District Forest Officer, as the same was not confirmed by the District Collector as per the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968. The prayer of the petitioner to decide the same on merit was rejected on the ground that the cancellation of licence is one of the grounds for confiscation of red sanders, against which appeal has been filed before the District Court and the matter was sub judiced.
(iii) W.A.No.2225 of 2011 has been filed as against the W.P.No.19105 of 2009, for direction against the District Forest Officer to return the Red Sanders and musical instrument parts weighing about 7069 kgs., lying in the hands of the District Forest Officer, in compliance with the Judgment of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur, dated 04.08.2009, in C.A.No.36 of 2007.
Facts of the case runs as follows:-
2.For the sake of convenience, both Miss.Anu Ambraile, Proprietrix of M/s AA Impex Company and Mr.Moosa, Proprietor of Glowdie Trade Wings, called as "1st respondent", since Anu Ambraile was substituted vide order of this Court dated 28.08.2019 in C.M.P.Nos.16605, 16607 and 16608 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 of 2019.
3.1st respondent herein is the licensed exporter of Red Sanders and musical instrument parts in the name and style of M/s A.A.Impex Company.
The Forest Range Officer, Headquarters Range, Chennai, had filed an interim offence report in STOR No.4 of 2003-04 on 19.09.2003 against the 1st respondent herein, complaining of illegal export of Red Sanders and musical instrument. Based on that, District Forest Officer, cancelled the possession license on 16.03.2004, issued by the District Forest Officer. Thereafter, the Forest Range Officer, Headquarters Range, seized the goods under the Warrant to search in the premises belongs to M/s AA Impex Company. Consequently, Anu Ambreily, the 1st respondent herein was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, and later she came on bail.
4.By order dated 22.07.2005, the District Forest Officer, passed an order of confiscation for the Red Sanders weighing 7069 kgs. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, with regard to canceling the possession license filed an appeal before the District Collector, who in turn by his letter dated 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 29.01.2007 in RC.No.4520/2006/D1 passed an order and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
"14.It is a fact that the possession license of the petitioner was cancelled after all the stock available at her premises was confiscated. So in that case, possession license itself had become infructuous, as admittedly she did not have any stock. The District Forest Officer chose to convey this through the cancellation order and he believed that the conditions under which license was issued had been violated. She has also submitted that she is not having any fresh stock of timber for which any license is required. Now, any order revoking the cancellation order issued by District Forest Officer, Kancheepuram would be equivalent to stating that she is having possession of 5230.500 kgs, which will be an incorrect statement. So the plea of revoking the cancellation order by District Forest Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Kancheepuram is also infructuous. However, it is clear that in case the petitioner wants to have possession of red sanders afresh, she can apply before District Forest Officer who will consider the application on merits as per rules.
15.The appeal petitioner has further said that DFO has no right to cancel the registration of property mark under the rule of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968.6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 The cancellation of registration of property marks by the District Forest Officer as in the present case has not been confirmed by District Collector as required by rule 7(2) of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968. Hence, that part of the order of District Forest Officer canceling the registration of property marks is not valid.
16.With above observations, appeal petition is disposed of."
5.The Cancellation of Registration of property marks by the District Forest Officer, in respect of M/s AA Impex Company, has not been confirmed by District Collector as required under Rule 7 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 in his proceedings dated 29.01.2007 in RC.No.4520/2006/D1. Hence, that part of the order of District Forest Officer, canceling the registration of property marks is not valid.
6.Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, the 1st respondent has preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.No.25107 of 2007.
7.The 1st respondent with regard to confiscation of Red Sanders wood musical instrument parts filed an appeal in C.A.No.36 of 2007 before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur. The 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 learned trial Judge after hearing both sides, finally held that the Red Sanders seized were covered under valid license possessed by the 1st respondent and further held that she has not indulged in illegal export, resultantly set aside the confiscation order dated 22.07.2005 passed by the District Forest Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Kancheepuram, with a direction to the appellant to release the goods to the 1st respondent and restore the license to hold the released stock.
8.As against the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 04.08.2009 in C.A.No.36 of 2007, the appellant in W.A.No.2223 of 2011 preferred the Writ Petition No.25895 of 2009 and due to non execution of the order of the trial Judge, the 1st respondent also filed another Writ Petition No.19105 of 2009 for direction to the appellants herein to return the Red Sanders and musical instrument parts weighing about 7069 kgs.
9.After hearing the arguments elaborately, the learned Single Judge held as follows:-
"11.In such circumstances, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur was correct in his reasonings that the seizure 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 and confiscation are void and the licensee had not involved in any illegal export and in directing the authorities to release the goods. Accordingly, I do not see any illegality in the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur, in C.A.No.36 of 2007 dated 04.08.2009 and the writ petition in W.P.No.25895 of 2009 stands dismissed and W.P.No.19105 of 2009 is allowed with direction to the respondents therein to implement the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur in C.A.No.36 of 2007.
12.Insofar as W.P.No.25107 of 2007 is concerned, since the appellate authority viz., the first respondent/District Collector has given a finding that the order of District Forest Officer in canceling the registration of property mark is not valid and the same has become final, the said part of the order of the first respondent remains valid and the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed in all the writ petitions."
10.Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 06.06.2011 passed in W.P.Nos.25107 of 2007, 19105 and 25895 of 2009, 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 the present Writ Appeals have been preferred.
11.Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the legal position that under Section 49D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the learned District and Sessions Judge has no power to release the timbers; as per rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, no person shall have in his possession Red Sanders timber chips or powder except under a special permit issued by the District Forest Officer in Form IV, when the weight of the Red Sanders wood exceeds 5 kgs; further the 1st respondent failed to maintain proper accounts at the time of inspection by the Forest officials; Ownership of the timber shall be indicated by a property mark and no mark was available in the seized goods. Hence the 1st respondent failed to prove her ownership. The observation of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur that the seizure was effected without giving any notice to the 1st respondent is unjustified because no notice is required to be given before seizures, thus the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition No.25895 of 2009 filed by the appellants herein and allowed the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.19105 of 2009 and 25107 of 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 2007 and thus pleaded to allow this Writ Appeals.
12.Learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the order of the learned Single Judge and further contended that the 1st respondent had license for possessing Red Sanders wood. The cancellation of possession license by the District Forest Officer on the basis of Forest Range Officer was not sustainable in law. Seizure can be effected under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, only when the Forest Officer has a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed. In this case, there was no material placed before the Forest Officer to show that the 1st respondent had possessed excess quantity of Red Sanders than the licensed quantity at the time of seizure. The learned District Judge, after considering the materials, license and shipping bills, rightly held that the 1st respondent possessed Red Sanders with valid license that the confiscation order was illegal and the cancellation of license was also not valid hence directed to release the goods to the 1st respondent and restore the license to hold the released stock. Besides, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the Forest Range Officer registered a false case against the 1st respondent, however later on S.V.Raja lingaraja was separately charged for foisting 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 false case against the 1st respondent and canceling the license of M/s AA Impex Company and demanded illegal gratification. The Principal Secretary to Government, after completion of disciplinary proceedings removed the said S.V.Raja lingaraja from service by an order dated 07.02.2020 in G.O.(2D).No.10. During the course of enquiry, it was clearly recorded that the properties were illegally seized from the godown of the 1st respondent and the said Forest Range Officer failed to establish that they were kept by the 1st respondent without license. Under these circumstances, it is established that the Forest Range Officer illegally seized and the District Forest Officer without any valid reason confiscated and cancelled the license, thus there is no merit in the Writ Appeals and pleaded to dismiss all the Writ Appeals.
13.Heard Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Advocate General, assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar, Government Advocate (Forest) for the appellants and Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011
14.The 1st respondent is a licensed merchant of Red Sanders wood and she is carrying on the business in the name and style, M/s AA Impex Company, having license and registration of property mark and stock verification certificate issued by the District Forest Officer. In addition to that, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests issued a certificate of origin of procurement and the Government of Tamil Nadu issued bona fide certificate for the stocks of musical instrument parts made of Red Sanders wood and stock were periodically inspected by the forest officials.
15.On the allegations made by the Forest Department that the petitioner had not accounted for three exports, the appellants issued an order on 26.09.2003, canceling the possession license. The District Forest Officer for confiscation, relying upon the following shipping bills, Sl.No. Shipping Bill No. Date Red Sanders sets 1. 1435572 17.05.2002 200 2. 1435275 16.05.2002 200 3. 1447730 14.06.2002 130 4. 1447161 13.06.2002 130 has concluded that they were not accounted but the Assistant Commissioner of Customs issued certificate dated 06.10.2003 to the effect that the shipment in respect of the above mentioned four shipping bills were not 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 effected due to cancellation of the same and the said certificate runs as follows:-
"This is to certify that the Shipment in respect of AA Impex Company, 45, M.H.Road, Moolakadai, Chennai 600 060, pertaining to shipping bill nos.1435572 dated 17.05.2002, No.1447161 dated 13.06.2002, 1435275 dated
16.05.2002 and 1447730 dated 14.06.2002 has not been effected due to cancellation of the above said shipping bills."
16.Further, the District Forest Officer had cancelled the possession license of the 1st respondent on 26.09.2003, based on the interim report of the Forest Range Officer. The Forest Range Officer, on 06.10.2003 broke open the 1st respondent's godown and seized the Red Sanders and musical instrument to the quantity of 7069 kgs.
17.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the order of the Environment and Forests (FR-1) Department dated 07.02.2020 in G.O.(2D).No.10, because while removing the above stated Forest Range Officer from service for proved charges, the Government has categorically held that for obtaining illegal gratification from the 1st respondent, the Forest Range Officer, illegally entered into her godown and seized the 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 goods. Further, it is imperative to note that there are three charges framed and out of which two charges are related to this case. The 2nd charge is as follows:-
Charge - (ii) Thiru.S.V.Rajalinga Rajah while serving as Ranger of Chennai Headquarters at Teynampet had demanded illegal gratifications for himself from one Miss.Anu Ambraile D/o. S.M.Elangovan, Plot No.7, Annai Velankanni Nagar First Street, Madanakuppam, Porur, Chennai-116, who is running a registered export business and stockiest of Red sanders and Musical Instrument parts etc., and he arbitrarily had foisted cases against the said Miss.Anu Ambraile and cancelled the said Miss.Anu Ambraile's forest license. On 01.10.2003, he went to the godown of the said Miss.Anu Ambraile at Puzhal and seized the goods in the said godown and affixed hammer marks on the goods and at that time he has reiterated his earlier demand of the said illegal gratifications to the said Miss.Anu Ambraile and directed the said Miss.Anu Ambraile to give the illegal gratifications for himself before a week and left the place leaving behind the said seized goods. Thereby, he has committed grave official misconduct and misdemeanor and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and violated rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 Rules, 1973.
Findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings:-
...................
...................
",e;j bkhj;j tprhuizapy; ve;jg; gFjpapYk;. muR jug;g[ rhl;rp ? 9 Fnlhdpy; ifg;gw;wg;gl;l bghUs;fs; rl;ltpnuhjkhd bghUs;fs; vd;W epUgpf;ftpy;iy/ ,j;jPh;g;ghaj;jpw;F Kd; M$h;gLj;jg;gl;l rhl;rpa';fs;. m';fpUe;j bghUs;fs; vy;yhk; ,irf;fUtpfs; kw;Wk; mij rhh;;e;jJ vd;Wk;. mtw;wpw;F chpkk; njitapy;iybad;Wk; jhd; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sdh;/ vdnt. ,e;j tHf;fpy; fpilf;fg;bgw;w. jug;gl;l mj;jid Mjhu';fisg; ghh;f;Fk; nghJ Fw;wk;rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; ?1 muh$fkhd y";rngh;tHp vd;Wk;. y";rk; bfhLf;fhj egh;fis jd;Dila mjpfhuj;ij kPwp <t[ ,uf;fkpy;yhky; b$apypy; js;sp jz;og;gth; vd;gJk; bjspthfpwJ/"
with regard to 3rd charge, the Tribunal has held as follows:-
"Charge-(iii): On 06.10.2003, Thiru.S.V.Rajalingha Rajah in abuse of his official position and authority went to godown of the above said Miss.Anu Ambraile at Puzhal and under the guise of bearing bogus hammer marks on the goods in the said godown which was actually affixed by him. On 01.10.2003, he has prepared a Mahazar and harassed the said Miss.Anu Ambraile to give in for his demand of the said illegal gratifications and subsequently on 15.10.2003, he has arrested the said Miss.Anu Ambraile and she was in remand for over three weeks. Thereby, 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 he has committed grave official misconduct and misdemeanor and failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and violated rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.
Findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings:-
...................
...................
",e;j tHf;fpy; Jiw mYtyh;fnsh my;yJ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtynuh. muR jug;g[ rhl;rp?9 mDmk;gh;yp cz;ikapnyna Fw;wk; bra;jhh; vd;W v';Fk; epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ epahakhd. neh;ikahd. ,irf;fUtpfs; bra;tjw;fhf. brk;kuf;fl;ilfis itj;jpUe;jikf;fhf. jpUkzkhfhj bgz; vd;Wk; ghuhky; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; mjpfhu tuk;ig kPwpapUf;fpwhh; vd;gJ bjspthfpwJ/ fpilf;fg;bgw;w Mjhu';fs; kw;Wk; rhl;rpa';fs; mog;gilapy; Fw;wr;rhl;L (iii) Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; kPJ re;njfj;jpw;F ,lkpy;yhky; epUgpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W jPh;g;ghak; jdJ Kotpid bjhptpj;Js;sJ/"
18.The Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal and held as follows:-
"3.The Government have examined the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and further explanation of the Delinquent Officer with relevant records. After a careful and independent examination, the Government have concluded that there is no case to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and decided to accept the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 that all the three charges are held proved against the Delinquent Officer. Further, the Government have proposed to impose the punishment of Removal from Government Service for the three proven charges against Thiru.S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, Assistant Conservator of Forests (under suspension). As per regulation 18(1)(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954, the views of the Commission were sought for in the Government letter fourth read above."
and further finally held as follows:-
"5.The Government have examined the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings along with the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with the connected records. The depositions of the P.W.1 and P.W.9 recorded at the time of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings enquiry confirm the allegations framed against Thiru.S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, Assistant Conservator of Forests (Under suspension) (formerly Forest Range Officer). Further, the Delinquent Officer has not adduced any trial points and not produced any tangible evidences to absolve him from the charges framed against him. Hence, the allegations of grave official misconduct and misdemeanor and failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty against the delinquent officer is held 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 as proved beyond any doubt. The Government have therefore decided to impose the punishment of removal from service of Thiru.S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, Assistant Conservator of Forests (under suspension) for the proved charges in Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings case No.4/2009. Accordingly, the Government order that for the proven charges in the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Case No.4/2009, Thiru.S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, Assistant Conservator of Forests (under suspension) be removed from service."
19.A perusal of the 2nd charge framed against S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, who was serving as Ranger of Chennai Headquarters at Teynampet, by the Government shows that the said S.V.Rajalinga Rajah demanded illegal gratification for himself from Miss.Anu Ambraile, Daughter of S.M.Elangovan, who is running a registered export business and stockist or Red Sanders and musical instrument etc., and he arbitrarily had foisted cases against the said Miss.Anu Ambraile and also cancelled the forest license of Miss.Anu Ambraile. Again the 2nd part of the same charge shows that S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, while serving as Ranger of Chennai Headquarters, went to the godown of the said Miss.Anu Ambraile at Puzhal and seized the goods in the said godown and affixed hammer marks on the goods and at 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 that time also, he reiterated his earlier demand of the said illegal gratification from the said Miss.Anu Ambraile, therefore, he was charged for having committed grave official misconduct and misdemeanor. The 3rd charge also shows that in abuse of his official position, S.V.Rajalinga Rajah, coming to the godown of Miss.Anu Ambraile at Puzhal, under the guise of bearing bogus hammer marks on the goods which he actually affixed, falsely prepared a mahazar and harassed the said Miss.Anu Ambraile who is an unmarried woman and also arrested and remanded her in judicial custody for three weeks and thereby committed grave official misconduct. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, after perusing all the evidence on record, gave its finding on the 2nd charge that the said S.V.Rajalinga Rajah was a frequent bribe taker and for not giving illegal gratification, he would even foist false cases against all those to the extent of putting them behind bars. More importantly the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has given a finding that the Red Sanders and musical instruments confiscated from Plot No.7, Annai Velankanni Nagar, First Street, Madanakuppam, Porur, Chennai were not proved to be illegal and without license. Therefore, when S.V.Rajalinga Rajah was found to have misused his official position for confiscating the Red Sanders and musical instruments from the godown 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 belonging to Miss.Anu Ambraile, who was possessing valid license for the seized Red Sanders and musical instruments, and for which he was also imposed with a major penalty of removal from service, on the ground that he committed grave official misconduct and misdemeanor and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, we do not find any error.
20.In view of the above said Government findings, it is established that the 1st respondent possessed valid license for the seized Red Sanders and musical instrument part. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, we confirm the order dated 06.06.2011 made in W.P.Nos.25895, 25107 and 19105 of 2009.
21.All the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
02.08.2021
Jer
T.RAJA, J.
and
21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
Jer
To
1.The Additional District Judge
Fast Track Court No.III
Tiruvallur.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
3.The District Collector Tiruvallur.
4.The District Forest Officer Chengalpattu Division Kancheepuram.
5.The District Forest Officer Tiruvallur Division Tiruvallur.
W.A.Nos.2223, 2224 and 2225 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 (03 Nos) and M.P.Nos.2 of 2011 (02 Nos) 02.08.2021 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/