Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Y Chakrapani vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 23 April, 2024
1
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00288/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON: 19.03.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 23.04.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Sri. Y. Chakrapani, (IFS),
S/o Late B. Yellappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Bengaluru Urban Division,
'Aranya Bhavan'
18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru
(now under suspension)
And, Residing at No.309,
66th Cross, V Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 010. ....Applicant
(By Shri P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel along with Advocate, Shri A.
Vishwanath Bhat)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
Sardar Patel Bhavan, Parliament Street,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Chief Secretary
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel Administrative & Reforms (DPAR)
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001. ....Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Shri M.
Rajakumar, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 and 3)
2
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash the order bearing e-DPAR 95 SFP 2023 dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure-A14), issued by Respondent No.3 vide which the applicant has been placed under suspension with immediate effect till further orders.
b) To direct the Respondents No 2 and Respondents No 3 to allow the Applicant to function as Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru Urban Division, Bengaluru as if there is no order of suspension and to grant him all the consequential benefits.
c) Pass such other order as this Tribunal deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The Applicant entered into Karnataka State Forest Service in the year 2000 as an Assistant Conservator of Forest. The applicant was promoted to the higher cadre of Deputy Conservator of Forest in State Forest Service in the year 2012. From the year 2012 to 2022, he was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest (SFS) at various forest divisions.3
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) While working as Deputy Conservator of Forest (SFS) at Virajpet Division, the applicant was conferred with IFS by an order dated 30.05.2022. While he was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest (SFS) at Virajpet Division, one Sri. Ramesh submitted an application in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Virajpet on 31.12.2021 seeking permission to fell 250 planted teakwood trees over a period of 6 months.
c) Range Forest Officer survey unit Virajpet was instructed by the applicant vide letter dated 08.03.2022 to conduct a survey of the said land and to submit a report with regard to existence of trees as stated by the applicant Shri Ramesh in his application.
d) The Deputy Range Forest Officer of Kutta Section vide his letter dated 18.04.2022 submitted a report to the Range Forest Officer certifying that there exist 66 teakwood trees. Upon receipt of the report of the Deputy Range Officer of Kutta Section, the Range Forest Officer Ponnampet Range, undertook the inspection of the land in which the trees were said to be standing and submitted a report on 21.04.2022 to the Asst. Conservator of Forest Thithimathi Sub-Division, with his opinion that permission may be accorded for felling 66 trees as requested by the said Ramesh in his application.
e) The Asst. Conservator of Forests Thithimathi Sub-Division, on receipt of the report of the RFO, Ponnampet Range, with a view to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the RFO, Ponnampet Range also undertook a spot inspection of the land of the said Ramesh. Pursuant to the said spot inspection, the said ACF has addressed a letter dated 4 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench 24.02.2022 to the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Applicant) interalia stating that permission may be granted to the said Ramesh for felling 66 teakwood trees.
f) Upon receipt of the report from his subordinate officers such as Deputy Range Forest Officer, Range Forest Officer and Asst. Conservator of Forest, the Applicant addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Virajpet taluk, Virajpet to find out the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated by the said Ramesh in his application.
g) Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk in his reply dated 22.04.2022 confirmed the fact stated by the said Ramesh interalia stating that he has grown 66 teakwood trees in his land and there is no objection from any corner to fell the said 66 teakwood trees and further opined that permission may be accorded.
h) Upon confirming the facts stated by the said Ramesh in his application seeking permission to fell 66 teakwood trees through all his subordinate officers as well the from the competent Revenue Authority namely the Tahsildar, Virajpet Talk, permission to fell 66 teakwood trees were granted in favour of the said Ramesh by the applicant vide order dated 25.04.2022.
i) After the said 66 trees were cut down, the Deputy Range Forest officer of Kutta section measured the felled 66 trees and converted the same into logs, billets and firewood etc. He submitted a report to the Range Forest officer Ponnampet Range, interalia stating that there are 667 5 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench logs having a volume of 329.717 cubic meter, 307 billets and 61 lots of firewood having a volume of 90.600 cubic meter.
j) On receipt of the letter from the said DRFO, the RFO Ponnampet Range by undertaking a spot inspection addressed a letter dated 15.06.2022 to the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Thithimathi and confirmed the facts stated by the said DRFO.
k) On receipt of the said letter/ report of the RFO, the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Thithimathi conducted a spot inspection and confirmed the facts stated by the RFO in his letter/report dated 15.06.2022. Upon such exercise, he addressed a letter dated 22.06.2022 to the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Virajpet division (Applicant) interalia recommending for grant of transport permission.
l) The Applicant was deputed to Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy for training, for the period between 16.07.2022 to 23.09.2022. Upon completion of the training, he reported back at Virajpet division office on 28.09.2022.
m) The Applicant was in receipt of a telephonic call from general public by which it was conveyed to him that the stored teakwood logs in the land of said Ramesh is excess than the one in respect of which permission for transportation was granted. In response to the same, with a sole view to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the said telephonic information, the Applicant addressed a letter dated 25.10.2022 to the Range Forest Officer with a specific instruction to undertake a spot inspection and to submit a report with regard to the 6 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench fact as to whether there are excess quantum of teakwood logs than the one allowed for transportation.
n) In response to the instructions contained in the letter dated 25.10.2022, the RFO Ponnampet after having conducted a spot inspection submitted a report by way of his letter dated 28.10.2022 interalia stating that there is no excess quantum of logs in the field than the one allowed for transportation and pointed out that what is available there is only 214 logs and 31 lots inclusive of the firewood and billets.
o) On receipt of the said report dated 28.10.2022, the Applicant noticed the difference in the quantum of the logs, billets and firewood between the earlier reports and the present report of RFO. Having entertained certain doubts that there may be some ulterior motive in furnishing inconsistent information, the applicant through his note dated 28.10.2022 ordered for a detailed report from the ACF, Thithimathi by conducting a spot inspection. Vide the very same office note dated 28.10.2022, it was also ordered that awaiting the report of the ACF, Thithimathi, the transport permit passed be stopped.
p) The applicant was transferred to the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru urban division by order dated 02.11.2022. Accordingly, he got himself relieved from Virajpet division and reported as DCF Bengaluru urban division on 05.11.2022.
q) When things stood thus, the order dated 02.11.2022 by which he was transferred from Virajpet Bengaluru urban division came to be cancelled by Respondent No.3 by an order dated 07.11.2022. Being 7 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench aggrieved by the same, the Applicant approached this Tribunal in O.A No. 170/00444/2022. This Tribunal by the order dated 13.12.2022 was pleased to quash the said order dated 07.11.2022. Being aggrieved by the orders of this Tribunal, the private Respondent therein challenged the same in W.P No. 19/2023 (S-CAT) on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Bengaluru Bench. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said W.P. on 04.01.2023.
r) In view of the fact that this Tribunal did not stay the operation of the said cancellation order dated 07.11.2022 impugned in O.A No. 170/00444/2022, the Applicant having left with no other option was constrained to continue at his original position as DCF, Virajpet division. During his continuation at Virajpet division, he was on medical leave from 08.11.2022 to 17.12.2022.
s) After availing the medical leave, the Applicant reported at Virajpet division on 18.12.2022. Thereafter, immediately by order dated 30.12.2022 the transportation permit granted in favour of Ramesh on 22.06.2022 was withdrawn. Besides cancelling the transportation permit order dated 22.06.2022, the Applicant issued notices to the DRFO, RFO, and the ACF requiring them to offer their explanation by way of show cause notice dated 30.12.2022 with regard to the quantum of difference between the said earlier report and the subsequent report.
t) Conservator of forest issued a show cause notice dated 05.01.2023 to the applicant requiring him to show cause and offer an explanation with regard to various allegations. The said show cause notice dated 05.01.2023 was served on the applicant on 13.01.2023. Immediately 8 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench on receipt of the same the applicant sought 15 days' time so as to enable him to reply to the show cause notice and to offer his explanation. By the letter dated 16.01.2023, the applicant requested for furnishing of certain relevant documents enabling him to give a complete reply to the said show cause notice dated 15.01.2023.
u) The 3rd Respondent without having any reference to the show cause notice of the Conservator of forest, Kodagu circle, and without waiting for the reply of the Applicant, issued the suspension order dated 21.06.2023 and placed the Applicant under suspension whilst he was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest Bengaluru Urban division. The allegation contained therein is that the Applicant being a tree officer had granted permission for felling 66 teakwood trees on the basis of forged revenue documents. The other allegation mentioned therein is that the Applicant has given a transport permit in favour of the owner of the land on the basis of the forged field report after felling Govt. teakwood trees. Felling permission was tempered at many places and at multiple times to hide the truth and with the intention to help the land owner wrongly and cause loss to the Govt. to the tune of crores of rupees. The allegations contained in the order of suspension is one and the same as contained in the show cause notice. A plain reading of the reply at Annexure-A17 and the documents annexed therein manifestly reveal that the allegation contained in the order of suspension is far from the truth and that the same has no basis much less a legal basis.
v) The source of power for the Respondent No.3 for keeping the Applicant under suspension by the said order dated 21.06.2023 is Rule 9 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench 3(1) (a) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Rule 3 (1) (a) of the said Rule reads as under;
"3. Suspension.-
(1) If, having regard to the circumstances in any case and, where articles of charge have been drawn up, the nature of the charges, the Government of a State or the Central Government, as the case may be, is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service, against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending, that Government may-
(a) if the member of the Service is serving under that Government, pass an order placing him under suspension."
w) A bare reading of the above Rule makes it clear that for the purpose of keeping an AIS officer under suspension, the authority competent to place such an officer under suspension shall be satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to place him under suspension only where articles of charges have been drawn up. In other words, it makes it clear that without drawing up of articles of charges, the question of placing an AIS officer under suspension will not arise for the simple reason that the articles of charges already drawn up shall be the basis for arriving at a conclusion as to whether it is necessary to place an AIS officer under suspension. Applying this position to the facts and circumstances to the case of the Applicant, the exercise of drawing of articles of charges was not at all undertaken by the 3rd Respondent. 10
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
x) An order of suspension of an AIS officer shall necessarily be preceded by an article of charges drawn up. In the instant case, there existed no articles of charges and hence the question of keeping the Applicant under suspension does not arise for the simple reason that there is no articles of charges for forming an opinion as to the necessity or desirability for keeping the Applicant under suspension. y) The allegations contained in the impugned order are far from truth and has no basis much less legal basis. One of the allegations contained is that the Applicant being a tree officer without conducting a spot inspection granted tree felling permission. There is no mandate on the part of a DCF in granting tree felling permission without conducting a spot inspection. The Applicant places reliance upon a circular dated 22.07.2014 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. In the circular at Anneure-A19, it is provided that a tree officer is entitled to grant felling permission on the basis of the recommendations made by DRFO, RFO and ACF. In the instant case, all the said officers have recommended for grant of felling up 66 teakwood trees in favour of the land owner Sri. Ramesh. Conducting the spot inspection by a DCF who is a competent to grant permission to fell tree arise only in a situation where the number of trees sought to be cut are 100 and above. As such, the allegation contained in the impugned order that the Applicant without spot inspection granted permission to fell tree is not at all tenable either under law or on facts.
z) With regard to the other allegations in the impugned order, that transportation permission was granted based on the forged revenue 11 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench documents, the applicant being a Deputy Conservator of Forest in the discharge of his duties is required to believe the report of the Tahsildar which was received by him in response to his request to submit a report. As such he had no occasion to entertain any suspicion as to the genuineness of the report of the Tahsildar. Even otherwise, assuming it is a forged document, such a forgery had taken place elsewhere. It is not at all the case of the Respondent that the applicant had forged the revenue documents.
aa) On the date of impugned order, the Applicant was not working in the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest Virajpet. On the other hand, admittedly he was working as such in Bengaluru urban division. Therefore, the very purpose and object of keeping an officer under suspension will not be achieved at all, the reason being the object and purpose of keeping an officer under suspension is to see that he shall not tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. These facts were not at all taken into consideration by the Respondent which ought to have been borne in mind at the time of placing him under suspension.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The petitioner herein is a member of the Indian Forest Service and was working as Deputy Conservator of Forests at Virajpet Division from 31.08.2022 to 20.01.2023. While working as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, Virajpet as 'Tree officer' of Virajpet Division he had received an application to fell 06 (six) teak trees in Survey Nos. 76/35, 76/1ap1, "Sagu Land" of Kutta Village, 12 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk. dated nil. This application was received by the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, Virajpet on 31.12.2021, from one Sri. M. N. Ramesh, S/o. M. S. Nanaiah, Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk.
b) It is not true that Sri. M. N. Ramesh submitted an application seeking permission to fell 250 planted teak wood trees over a period of 6 months. Though Sri. M.N. Ramesh sought for felling of 6 teak trees, the Applicant granted permission to fell 66 teak trees without verifying the application and without following the procedures under section 8 (3) of Karnataka Tree Preservation Act, 1976 and para 116 of Karnataka Forest Code 1976.
c) The Petitioner without examining and verifying/comparing the signatures of indemnity bond dated 31.12.2021, affidavit dated 31.12.2021, signature on the application and signature of Sri. M. N. Ramesh s/o. Nanaiah on the tree list proceeded further to grant permission to fell 66 teak trees, without asking any questions about the genuineness of the felling application.
d) On the same day i.e., 31.12.2021, the applicant addressed a letter to Range Forest Officer, Survey Unit, Virajpet enclosing the application of Sri. M. N. Ramesh and documents attached to the application, and asked to survey the land and identify the area of trees to be felled, identify and prepare a sketch of the trees which are in the boundary of the land of the Applicant Sri. M. N. Ramesh along with certificate to that effect.
13
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
e) In-turn the Range Forest Officer, Survey Unit, Virajpet asked the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Kutta Section-2 to prepare the sketch and submit on 08.03.2022. The Deputy Range Forest Officer of KuttaSection-2 submitted his report to the Range Forest Officer, Ponnampet Range on 18.04.2022. The Range Forest Officer, Ponnampet Range, after inspection filed his report on 21.04.2022 to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Titimati Sub Division. The Assistant Conservator of Titimati Sub-Division addressed a letter to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division (Applicant) on 22.04.2022, and recommended to fell 66 teak trees.
f) Rule 8 (3) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act 1976, which reads as under: -
"8(3) on receipt of the application, the Tree Officer may, after inspecting the tree and holding such inquiry as he deems necessary, either grant permission in whole or in part or refuse permission:
........"
g) It is evident from the above rule that the applicant as Tree officer had to conduct a spot inspection and to hold such inquiry as he deems necessary. The applicant as a Tree Officer, failed to inspect the trees and make necessary inquiry, in violation of the said Act.
h) The applicant without examining the jurisdiction of the land in question, then proceeded to address Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk, Virajpet to examine the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated by Sri. M.N. Ramesh in his application. In fact, Survey Nos. 76/35, 76/1apl of Sagu 14 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench Land of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, comes under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar, Ponnampet Taluk. The applicant had written to the wrong authority seeking Revenue Opinion of the said land. Hence, the opinion obtained by the applicant was unauthorized.
i) During the investigation by the Forest Mobile Squad, it has come to the notice that the Revenue Opinion given by the Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk is not true, and no such file existed in the office of the Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk as ascertained from the letter of the Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk.
j) The averments of the Applicant that the Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk is the competent Revenue Authority is denied as false. As per Karnataka Forest Manual Para 119, on receipt of the application the Deputy Conservator of Forests or Range Forest Officer should refer it along with his observations to the Deputy Commissioner, in cases where the value of tree growth exceeds Rs. 50,000/- and to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction in cases where the value is Rs. 50, 000/-.
k) The applicant should have obtained the following details from the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner: -
"a) A sketch prepared by a competent Revenue Survey or showing the survey number countersigned by the Assistant Director of Land Records, clearly specifying that the concerned tree growth applied for is situated within the survey number specified in the application. 15
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
b) Obtain clear information about the ownership of the tree growth, in the survey number and whether tree growth belongs to the petitioner or not."
l) The applicant has not followed the above rules and failed to abide by the rules while discharging his duties. Hence, the corroborative documents were examined and after ascertaining the case of misdemeanour prima facie, the suspension order was issued.
m) The applicant exceeded his powers in dealing with Forest Offence Case No. 25/2022-23, dated 29.12.2022 and released teak logs 214 = 80.039 m3, teak billets 64.000 m3 and 31 lots of firewood = 30.500 m3 after imposing a nominal fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- without assessing the actual cost of the material released in violation of the Section 21(1) of Karnataka Tree Preservation Act 1976 and Government Notification No. FEE 138 FAD 91, dated 17.05.1993 wherein, the Deputy Conservator of Forests is authorized to release timber up to the extent of 3.000 m3 and firewood 10.000 m3 and value of both not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-after imposing a fine of Rs. 15,000/. The applicant violated the above rule, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of the All India Service.
n) In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 3 (1) (a) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, the applicant Sri Chakrapani, IFS, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division has been placed under suspension.
16
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
o) It is evident from the above facts and Rules that the State Government has verified all the materials presented before it, including draft articles of charges, and proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension for smooth functioning of the departmental enquiry with an intention to conduct departmental enquiry as per rules. Show-cause-notice was given before placing the officer, who is an All India Service member, under suspension. Hence, the averments of the applicant are not tenable under law.
p) Prima-facie, there is material to show that there is dereliction of duty and misconduct as alleged. At this stage Tribunal / court cannot ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the applicant, at this stage and it is only the enquiry officer who can ascertain the same after recording of the evidence from both the sides. Hence, at this stage the scope for review of suspension order is very limited.
q) The applicant challenged the order dated 21.06.2023 in Original Application No. 288/2023, passed by this Tribunal in so far as non- grant of interim prayer of stay against his suspension was concerned, before the Honourable High court of Karnataka. The Honourable High Court of Karnataka in W.P No: 13916/2023 vide its order dated 18.07.2023 has stayed the operation of the order of suspension dated:
21.06.2023.
r) Consequent upon the Hon'ble High Court order in W.P No:
13916/2023 dated 18.07.2023, the applicant has been given posting as DCF (Budget & Audit), Bengaluru in the downgraded post vide State 17 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench Government Notification No: DPAR 95 SFP 2023, dated 19.08.2023 subject to further orders of this Tribunal in O.A No 288/2023. However, the applicant has not yet reported in the said post.
s) The applicant being a member of an "All India Service" can influence the investigation or the evidence even though he is working in the capital of the state. The departmental enquiry in this case has to be conducted under The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and The All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. The draft Article of charges are required to be framed by the Administrative Department i.e, Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, in English and sent to the Competent Authority Department i.e., Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR). Further, the DPAR will examine the proposal and issue the Article of Charges to the applicant with the approval of the Competent Authority i.e., Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka.
t) The Respondent has requested The Administrative Department i.e., Forests, Ecology and Environment Department, to send the translated copy of the draft Article of charges on 05.08.2023, 15.11.2023 and 12.02.2024. The Administrative Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, has sent the translated copy of the draft Article of charges to DPAR on 12.02.2024.
u) The DPAR has examined the proposal and the draft Article of charges sent by the Administrative Department and the same is submitted for Approval of the Competent/Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. After the approval of the 18 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench Competent/Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, the Article of Charges will be issued to the applicant by the Respondents.
v) The Respondents have, subsequently, filed a memo dated 02.04.2024 enclosing a copy of the charge memo issued by the State Government to the applicant dated 21.03.2024. In this charge memo, there are 13 articles of charges against the applicant broadly dealing with grant of permission to felling of 66 teak trees, and transportation of timber in violation of the rules and law. The specific articles of charge are briefly enumerated in the charge memo as follows:
You, Mr. Y. Chakrapani, I.F.S., while serving as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet from 31.08.2020 to 20.01.2023 have failed to discharge your duties properly as Tree Officer and as Deputy Conservator of Forests and have violated the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968, while dealing with an application seeking permission for felling of six (06) teak (Tectona grandis) trees in Schedule-I Rural area survey nos. 76/35, 76/API, of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district by permitting 66 teak trees felling (when only six were requested to be felled) and the transportation of timber and firewood that those 66 trees yielded.
Charge- 1 An application was received by your office on 31.12.2021 from Mr. M.N.Ramesh, S/o Nanayya seeking permission as required for by the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 for felling of six (06) 19 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench teak (Tectona grandis) trees in Schedule-I Rural area survey nos. 76/35, 76/1AP1 of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district you, without conducting enquiry properly as required under section 8(2) of the said Act and the rules made thereunder, granted permission for felling of sixty-six (66) teak (Tectona grandis) trees vide Office Memorandum No. UASam. Vi.Pete:L.N.D.:CR-9/2022-23, dated 25.04.2022. Charge-2 Even though there is conspicuous variation in the signatures of the Applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh, S/o Nanayya, in the following documents:
(i) Application seeking permission for felling of six (06) teak (Tectona grandis) trees (received by your office on 31.12.2021) in survey nos. 76/35, 76/1AP1 of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district.
(ii) Indemnity bond dated 31-12-2021 enclosed along with the application.
(iii) Affidavit dated 31-12-2021enclosed along with the application.
(iv) The tree. enumeration list on page 12 (signed by you) of the original file in your office with regard to the said case. However, instead of questioning it and conducting investigation into these differences, you have granted permission for felling of sixty-six (66) teak trees.
Charge-3 20 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench After receiving report no. VaAA/Po. Pete/CR/110/2022-23, dated 21-04-2022 of the Range Forest Officer, Ponnampet Range, through the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Titimati Sub-division report No. SaASam-Timati- 45/2022-23, dated 22-04-2022, you, instead of taking opinion of the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri, as the competent authority in Revenue Department (as required vide para 119 of Karnataka Forest Manual) permitted felling of 66 Teak trees vide your Office Memorandum No.UASam.Vi.Pete.LND/CR- 9/2022-23 dated 25.04.2022 based on unauthentic/unverified revenue documents.
Charge-4 The applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh, S/o Nanayya having claimed that the 6 teak (Tectona grandis) trees in survey nos. 76/35, 76/1AP1 of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district, for which felling permission was sought, were planted in rows, but in reality, not being in rows as is evident from GPS readings, you as Tree Officer without verifying the facts, granted felling permission for 66 teak trees mentioning them as "...66 trees planted in rows"
in your office memorandum.
Charge-5 The applicant in his application having claimed the 6 teak (Tectona grandis) trees in survey nos. 76/35, 76/1AP1 of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district, for which felling permission was granted, as planted by him. However, they are naturally grown as is evident based on the girth ranging being between 1.2 meter to 3.6 meter. You as Tree Officer without 21 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench verifying the facts, granted felling permission for 66 teak trees mentioning them as " ..66 trees planted in rows".
Charge-6 The applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh, S/o Nanayya, having mentioned the lands on which the trees applied for felling permission stood (Survey nos. 76/35, 76/1AP1, Kutta village, Simangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk) to be "Sagu jaga" in his application, but the land where you accorded permission for felling 66 teak trees vide Office Memorandum No. UASam. Vi.Pete LND/ CR-972022-23, dated 25- 04-2022 actually being not only those two survey numbers but also the adjoining Government Paisari land in survey number 76/1 of Kutta village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk. Charge-7 You had permitted felling of 66 teak trees. However, as is evident by the stumps available on ground only 35 trees were felled. However, without verifying the facts, you have permitted transportation of converted material of felled and un-felled trees by granting 47 transit permits for 667 logs=329.717 cum of timber and 61 lots (307 billets an 90.600 cum firewood).
Charge-8 You have approved grant of 47 Nos of transit permits on 04.07.2022. However, to give effect to the same, you have issued letter No. UA Sam/Vi. Pete/LND/CR/09/2022-23 dated 22.06.22. Thus, you have issued the letter dated 22.06.2022 in retrospective date. Charge-9 22 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench In spite of the applicant having mentioned the land (survey nos. 76/35 and 76/1AP1 in Kutta Village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk) as 'Sagu' land and the said land having been entered in revenue records as "unredeemed land", thereby meaning that trees that stood on the said lands on the date of grant had not been paid for by the guarantee and thus belonged to government. In such a case, trees that were on those lands prior to the date of grant belonged to government and not the land owner/applicant. If those trees were required by the landowner/applicant, he had to pay the market value of the said trees. However, without doing any such enquiry regarding whether some/all trees belonged to the landowner/applicant or to the government, you vide Office Memorandum No. UAaSam. Vi.Pete.LND/CR-9/2022-23, dated 25- 04-2022 have granted permission to the applicant to fell 66 teak trees and have vide letter No. UASam/Vi. Pete/LND/CR/09/2022-23, dated 22.06.2022 given permission for 47 transit permits for transporting the same for sale purpose. This has resulted in financial loss to the government.
Charge-10 You without ascertaining the ground facts, vide your letter No. UASam/Vi.Pet/LND/CR-9/2022-23, dated 22-06-2022 granted 47 transit permits. However, the Deputy Range Forest Officer- cum- Surveyor, Kutta Section, vide his report dated: 27-10-2022 reported that in reality, 35 teak trees were removed and converted into 214 logs = 80.039 cubic meters, 31 billets and firewood lots = 30.500 cubic meters. You have thus granted permits that are in excess of 23 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench what was required for the purpose. Both as a Tree Officer and a Deputy Conservator of Forests, you have failed to take any precautions with regard to the above.
Charge-11 Even though the Range Forest officer, Ponnampet, vide letter dated 28-10-2022, had reported to you the fact that 35 teak trees were cut, but you did not take any action in this regard. Later, when a forest Offence case No. 25/2022-2023 was filed by the Deputy Range Forest Officer-cum-Surveyor, Kutta Section, on 29-12-2022, you ordered the release of the confiscated 214 teak logs =80.039 cubic meter 31 lots of firewood comprising of 64 billets = 30.500 cum the very next day by compounding the Offence for Rs. 100,000 which is less than 25% of the value of the produce released as per section 21 (1)(a) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. Charge - 12 You having compounded the forest Offence Case No.25/2022-23, dated 29-12-2022 with an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the Karnataka Forest Manual Form 24 (para 72 of Manual), you failed to take any action under sections 8, 15 and 21 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, and thus you have colluded with your subordinates in cheating the government.
Charge-13 Right from the receiving the Application dated 31.12.2021 seeking permission for felling 6 teak trees in survey nos. 76/35, 76/1AP1 of Kutta Village, Srimangala Hobli, Ponnampet taluk, Kodagu district all correspondence/reports/documents are in the name of Mr. M.N. 24 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench Ramesh. However, in place of the applicant, the name of one Mr. Mohammed Shafeeq, S/o P.V. Hameed, Siddapura Village, Virajpet Taluk, has cropped up suddenly in Forest Offence Case No. 25/2022-23 dated 29.12.2022 and other connected documents and the very next day, i.e., 30.12.2022, the applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh has produced a General Power of Attorney given by him to Mr. Mohamed Shafeeq, S/o P.V. Hameed, Siddapura Village, Virajpet Taluk, and at the same time the applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh has filed a complaint No. 0004/04.02.2023 against Mr. Mohamed Shafeeq in Kutta Police Station. In the backdrop of all this, it is clear that you have failed to discharge your duties in dealing with the entire case.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the order dated 21.06.2023 suspending him from service. The applicant had also prayed for an interim relief praying for grant of stay against operation and execution of the order dated 21.06.2023 vide which he had been suspended.
6. This Tribunal had not granted any interim relief in the matter and sought for a reply from the respondents in the present OA on 27.06.2023. However, the applicant subsequently approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka through WP No. 13916/2023 challenging the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by this Tribunal in so far as non-grant of interim order as prayed for by the Petitioner was concerned. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 18.07.2023 with the following observations:- 25
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench "Be that as it may, these various aspects of the allegation require to be ascertained after a detailed enquiry or investigation and we do not wish to enter upon and adjudicate on the merits of the same.
10. As noted supra, the contents of the documents prima-facie contradicts the grounds enumerated in the order of suspension. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the order of suspension does not inspire confidence in this Court. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is far removed from the alleged place of mischief and is presently posted at Aranya Bhavan Head Office, Bengaluru.
11. In view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to stay the operation of the order of suspension dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure-A14) and the order of stay shall be in operation till the pendency of the application before the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.
13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are for the purposes of adjudication and disposal of the writ petition and shall not be construed as a pronouncement on the merits of the claims of the respective parties. It is open for the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the application on its merits. That the third respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to resume duties.
The file containing the original records is returned to the learned Additional Government Advocate.
Ordered accordingly."
26
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
7. As specifically observed by the Hon'ble High Court in this case, the directions in the Writ Petition are not to be construed as a pronouncement on the merits of the claims of the respective parties and it is open for this Tribunal to consider the disposal of the present application on merits after perusal of the pleadings filed and hearing the learned counsels of the parties.
8. The facts of the case as revealed from the detailed pleadings and written arguments filed by the applicant, as well as articles of charges now framed against the applicant, reveal the following:
(i) The applicant while functioning as Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, had received an application from one Shri M.N. Ramesh seeking permission to fell 06 teak trees which were allegedly located in the land belonging to him. However, for unknown reasons, permission was granted by the applicant for felling of 66 trees instead of 06 teak trees as applied for.
(ii) This permission was granted by the applicant allegedly based upon spot inspection reports of the subordinate forest officers namely Deputy Range Forest Officer, Range Forest Officer and Asst. Conservator of Forest. All these officers had reported and confirmed the existence of 66 teak trees on the land belonging to the applicant namely Shri Ramesh. The applicant had also apparently received the verification report from Tahsildar, Virajpet, who, according to the respondents, was not the authorised revenue officer to deal with such permissions. Even the letter purportedly received from the Tahsildar is alleged to be a forged document.27
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(iii) As is evident from the reply filed by the respondents, all these reports were either fake or concocted. The applicant allegedly failed to notice the basic discrepancies of different signatures on the documents furnished in the initial application. He failed to visit the spot himself, being the Tree Officer, to conduct a spot survey to ascertain the ground truth whether these trees, which are claimed to be standing in the land belonging to the applicant, were actually physically existing on spot, and whether they were planted/owned by the applicant. Even the verification report from the Tahsildar was allegedly a fake document. Moreover, as per the respondents, the Tahsildar Virajpet was not the competent authority in any case to issue such a letter/certificate.
(iv) Besides Shri Y. Chakrapani, 03 others concerned subordinate Forest Officers namely Shri C.D. Bopanna, Deputy Range Forest Officer cum surveyor, Kutta Section, Ponnampet Range, Shri Rajesh K.G. Forest Guard, Kutta Beat, Kutta Section, Ponnampet Range, Smt. Hemavathi K.A. First Division Assistant, Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, Virajpet, had also been suspended by the respondents on the same issue.
(v) These three State Forest officers approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore through Application No. 8212023 C/W A. No. 824/2023 & A.No. 842/2023 challenging their order of suspension. However, in a detailed order passed on 16.08.2023, the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the said applications observing as follows: 28
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench "the applicants herein who themselves admitted in their pleadings that there is an illegal cutting of Teakwood trees, but is because of the oral say of Shri Y. Chakrapani, DCF, now they cannot say that they are to be excused by quashing the suspension orders as action is not taken against Sri Y. Chakrapani. It is for the respondent- Government to examine the materials in detail and if there is an involvement of Sri. Y. Chakrapani also, then, in that case, it is for the respondent authorities to take action against Sri. Y. Chakrapani also. Hence, perusing the entire materials, there is no merit in the above applications. The applications are liable for dismissal and accordingly, they are dismissed."
9. From the pleadings filed by the applicant, it is evident that the applicant has himself admitted that he had not visited the spot at all even after coming to know that the Teakwood trees were cut down in excess and contrary to the permission granted, and there were suspected discrepancies in the quantity of logs and timber generated by alleged cutting of these trees. Even after receiving complaints on telephone from various quarters, he chose not to do any spot inspection himself, and simply relied upon the report of subordinates without undertaking any spot inspection to ascertain the truth or facts.
10. The applicant has claimed that he was misled by his subordinate officers who apparently had filed false and concocted reports to him. On the other hand, these subordinate officers, who were placed under suspension, and had challenged their suspension before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT), have admitted before the KAT, that there was illegal 29 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench cutting of Teakwood trees. They have, however, contended before the KAT, that this illegal act was done because of the oral directions issued to them by the applicant Shri Y. Chakrapani, DCF.
11. A copy of the Enquiry Report dated 4.02.2023 into illegal cutting of Teak trees in the Coffee Plantation of Shri M.N. Ramesh which is coming under the jurisdiction of Kutta of Ponnampet Zone of Virajpet Division has been placed as Annexure- R21 in the connected OA No. 423/2023 filed by the applicant wherein he has challenged his transfer to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Budget & Audit, Bengaluru.
12. This enquiry had been conducted by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Vigilance) Aranya Bhavana, Bengaluru. In this report inter alia, it has been specifically observed as follows:-
"On inspection of the spot on 2.2.2023, the 66 teak trees which have been ordered for cutting down, it was noticed that these trees are naturally grown as big trees. But, in the office file/orders it is mentioned as these 66 teak trees have been planted in line and cultivated, which is a fabricated one.
......
A part of the said cutting of trees in Government land is adjoining to Nagarahole Tiger Conservation Area and another part is adjoining to Vaynadu Wild Animal Conservation Area of Kerala State. The teak trees which have been cut down are very 'Matured Mother Trees'. This act has caused loss to the State Treasury as well as ecology and environment. ......30
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench This case has come to light due to an anonymous telephone call information. There is a possibility of this type of cases happening in the last three years in Virajpet. Hence, it is recommended and requested to enquire all the orders for cutting of trees and initiate disciplinary action against all those officers/ staff who have directly /indirectly involved and cooperated for illegal tree cutting."
13. Subsequent to this enquiry report dated 04.02.2023, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Arnaya Bhavan, Bengaluru has issued an OM vide notification No. KFD/HOFF/B5 (MSC)/3/2023- PnR-KFD dated 11.01.2024 vide which a special investigation team has been formed to enquire into the cases of all illegal cutting of trees in the past three years. This OM has referred to another report dated 25.09.2023 of Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) wherein it has been stated that there is discrepancy in 71 cases of tree cutting permissions granted in respect of private ownership lands, in the last three years. This order dated 11.1.2024 has specifically directed the SIT to submit its report in triplicate in sealed envelopes by 5.30 p.m. on 17.01.2024 (Wednesday).
14. The respondents have not placed on record the findings of this SIT. It is therefore not known as to what has been the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the SIT set up by the forest department into these 71 other cases where it has been suspected that these also involve illegal felling of teak trees. Be that as it may, this only reveals the sad state of affairs in the functioning of the forest department/state forest officers. It is the primary duty and responsibility of the forest officers to protect the precious forest wealth of the State and to assist in forest conservation. However, as is 31 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench evident from the pleadings and documents available, there has been allegedly, large scale illegal felling of teak trees in Virajpet Division in the last three years, in apparent connivance of the forest officers.
15. The actual truth in the present episode of alleged illegal tree felling of 66 teak trees, notwithstanding the claims and counterclaims of the concerned officers, can be established only through a detailed enquiry in the matter. However, what is clearly discernible from the material placed on record is that the applicant did not conduct any spot visit for a physical inspection both at the time of the initial application filed by Shri Ramesh as well as after the cutting of Teakwood trees apparently from nearby forest areas adjoining to the land of the applicant.
16. The charge sheet filed by the respondents enumerates very serious and grave charges against the applicant. It also indicates another serious dimension of alleged attempts to manipulate the records. Charge 13 of the memo alleges that "Right from the receiving (dated 31-12-2021) of the application seeking permission for tree felling, all correspondence/reports/documents are in the name of Mr. M.N. Ramesh. However, all of sudden in place of the Applicant, the name of one Mr Mohamed Shafeeq, s/o P.V. Hameed, Sidapura village, Virajpet taluk has cropped up in Forest Offence Case No. 25/2022-23, dated:29-12-2022 filed by the Dy RFO-cum-Surveyor, Kutta Section and other connected documents and the very next day, i.e, 30-12-2022, the Applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh has produced a General Power of Attorney given by him to Mr. Mohamed Shafeeq, S/o P.V. Hameed, Siddapura village, Virajpet taluk, the same was inserted in page No. 174 of the original case file and the applicant Mr. M.N. Ramesh has further filed a complaint No. 32 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench 0004/ 04-02-2023 against Mr. Mohamed Shafeeq in the Kutta Police Station. In the backdrop of all this, it is clear that you have failed to discharge your duties in dealing with the entire case. By doing so, you have not only failed in discharging duties but also violated the Rules of procedure U/s 8(3) of the Karnataka Tree preservation Act, 1976; failed to perform the duties assigned to the Deputy Conservator of Forests as described in Article 116(a) of the Karnataka Forest Code1976; and also violation of Rules 3(1), 3(1A)(i), (iv), 3(2), 3(2B) (iii), (iv), (vii), (viii), (x), (xiii) of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968."
17. From the documents and pleadings available, it can be concluded that there is a prima-facie case against the applicant of being involved in committing a grave misconduct by permitting illegal felling of mother grown up teak trees some of which were having an age exceeding hundred years under his jurisdiction on a very large scale. He has also allegedly granted permission for transportation of the timber on a huge scale which did not correspond to the estimated quantity of timber produced after this illegal felling.
18. However, all these specific charges delineating the grave misconduct allegedly committed by the applicant, can be established only after a detailed departmental enquiry is conducted and concluded by the competent authority in the matter.
19. The allegations of illegal felling of teak trees were initially investigated by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. He had submitted his report on 04.02.2023. However, the State Government did not issue any charge sheet in the matter till 21.03.2024, i.e. after a lapse of more than one year.
33
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
20. Moreover, in his report the APCCF had specifically mentioned that there was a possibility of these type of cases happening in the last three years in Virajpet. Hence, it had been recommended to enquire into all the orders issued for cutting of trees and to initiate disciplinary action against all those officers/ staff who have directly /indirectly involved and cooperated in illegal tree cutting. It is observed that the forest department continued to drag its feet even after receiving such alarming reports alleging large scale irregularities involving cutting of trees. The forest department has belatedly set up the Special Investigation Team only on 11.1.2024, after about one year from the date of the report from APCCF (Vigilance).
21. These unexplained delays in taking suitable action by the State Government and the Forest Department, give an extremely poor reflection on their functioning. Such scant respect to their bounden duty to protect the forests and prevent environmental degradation in such eco sensitive zones needs to be strongly deprecated.
22. Keeping the above points in view, the respondents need to ensure that there is an expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in the present case, and the proceedings are brought to their logical conclusion.
23. It is also imperative on the part of the respondents to take immediate further action as required under law on the report submitted by the SIT after investigating into allegedly similar irregularities in 71 other cases of illegal felling of trees in the last three years.
34
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
24. As far as the issue relating to placing the applicant under suspension is concerned, Rule 3 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 reads as under;
"3. Suspension.--
PART II--SUSPENSION (1) If, having regard to the circumstances in any case and, where articles of charge have been drawn up, the nature of the charges, the Government of a State or the Central Government, as the case may be, is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service, against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending, that Government may:
(a) if the member of the Service is serving under that Government, pass an order placing him under suspension, or
(b) if the member of the Service is serving under another Government request that Government to place him under suspension, pending the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the passing of the final order in the case.
(c) IAS officers working under Central Government shall only be suspended on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee as amended with the approval of Minister-in-charge, Department of Personnel & Training.
Provided that, in cases, where there is a difference of opinion,--
(i) between two State Governments, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision ;
(ii) between a State Government and the Central Government, the opinion of the Central Government shall prevail:
Provided further that the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who are the heads of the respective Services, shall not be placed under suspension without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. 35
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench Provided also that, where a State Government passes an order placing under suspension a member of the Service against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated, such an order shall not be valid unless, before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date from which the member is placed under suspension, or such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be specified by the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing, either disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him or the order of suspension is confirmed by the Central Government."
25. The applicant had taken the stand that since there was no chargesheet drawn by the respondents at the time of his suspension on 21.6.2023, and therefore, he could not have been placed under suspension by the respondents.
26. However, a plain reading of the rule 3(1), indicates that two separate scenarios are envisaged under this rule. In the first scenario, the rules specify that having regard to the circumstances in any case, where the competent authority is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service, it can place him/her under suspension. In the second scenario, where articles of charge have been drawn up, and having regard to the nature of the charges, where the competent authority is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service, it can place him/her under suspension.
27. The only other condition prescribed with regards to the suspension is that where a State Government passes an order placing under suspension a member of the Service, against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated, such an order shall not be valid unless, before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date from which the member is placed under suspension, or such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be 36 OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench specified by the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing, either disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him or the order of suspension is confirmed by the Central Government.
28. In the present case, keeping in view the circumstances of the case as delineated in the show cause notice issued against the applicant by the Conservator of forest on 5.1.2023, as well as the reasons specified in the suspension order dated 21.6.2023 itself, it cannot be said that the State Government had insufficient or invalid reason to place the applicant under suspension.
29. Be that as it may, the respondents have subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and served a detailed charge sheet on him on 21.03.2024. A perusal of the charge sheet indicates serious and grave charges against the applicant.
30. Under the provisions of Rule 3 of AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, where articles of charge have been drawn up, having regard to the nature of the charges, if the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place the applicant under suspension, it can pass an order placing him under suspension.
31. Keeping in view the above provision under Rule 3, and the fact that now a detailed charge memo has been served on the applicant, on 21.3.2024, the State Government is empowered under these Rules, to place the applicant under suspension, if it is satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to do so, in view of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him. 37
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
32. Keeping the above facts in view, the present OA, being bereft of any merit whatsoever, is dismissed, however, with the following observations/directions:-
a) The order of the interim stay against the suspension of the applicant by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was only till the pendency of the present application. Since the present OA has been dismissed, the interim stay against the suspension order ordered by the Honourable High Court ceases to be operative.
b) Keeping in view the provisions under Rule 3 of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and the fact that a detailed charge memo has been served on the applicant, on 21.3.2024, the State Government is empowered under these Rules, to place the applicant under suspension, if it is satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to do so, in view of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him. The State government shall take an immediate decision in the matter, under rules, regarding placing the applicant under suspension if they consider it necessary and desirable to do so.
c) The respondents are directed to ensure that there is an expeditious enquiry in the present case in furtherance to the charge memo dated 21.3.2024 issued to the applicant, and the proceedings are brought to their logical conclusion, within a time frame not exceeding 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 38
OA.No.288/2023/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) The respondents are further directed to take immediate further necessary action, as required under law, on the report, if any, submitted by the SIT set up vide order dated 11.1.2024 issued by the PCCF (HOFF). The SIT, vide order dated 11.1.2024 had been directed to submit its report by 17.1.2024 after investigating into allegedly similar irregularities in 71 other cases of illegal felling of trees in Virajpet Division in the last three years. The State Forest Department shall prepare a detailed action taken report in the matter, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on the report of the SIT received by them, for consideration of the Respondent No: 2, (Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka), who shall issue appropriate directions in the matter, forthwith, as required under law.
33. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/hy/