Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.

The writ petition is to quash the order dated 24.01.2008 passed in O.A.No.850 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, shortly the Tribunal, the second respondent herein. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (hereinafter referred as the PCCF) are the writ petitioners.

2.The first respondent herein was directly recruited to the Indian Forest Service and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre in 1977. He has rendered 32 years of service. While so, the first petitioner issued a charge sheet in Letter No.33392/FR.Spl.A/97-2 dated 16.04.1998 against the first respondent for the alleged misconduct committed during his service as Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Monitoring Circle, Chennai from 04.02.1992 to 18.06.1996. The charge sheet was based on the audit report and the reports dated 12.06.1997, 04.07.1997 and 22.07.1997 of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Research), Chennai.

28.In this regard, the PCCF wrote a letter dated 11.03.2004 to the Secretary that recovery could be made from the Societies concerned as done in earlier occasions and the same is found at page No.82 of the Note File and the same is usefully extracted here-under:

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

29.Thereafter, the Note File revealed that there were so many correspondences between the Secretary and the PCCF regarding the details of the Co-operative Societies from whom the recoveries have to be made and the quantum of amount from each of those Societies. The PCCF gave the list of Societies and the quantum of amount from those Societies.

32.Only after the said note from the office of the Honourable Chief Minister, the PCCF was again asked to submit his report after examining the case in detail. Based on the same, the PCCF submitted a report dated 22.06.2005 holding that the loss to the Government was only Rs.38,95,035/- and not Rs.73,87,923/-. It is stated by the PCCF that fifteen officials including the first respondent were responsible for the loss of Rs.38,95,035/- and that the first respondent is responsible for Rs.9,88,780/- only out of the said amount of Rs.38,95,035/-. The PCCF further stated that five officials among them had retired from service four years back and therefore, no action could be taken against them. The said order dated 22.06.2005 is found from page Nos.255 to 272 of the Current File. Further, from the Note File, we could see that the disciplinary action is not yet completed against the said subordinate staff involved in the alleged misconduct along with the first respondent though eleven years had elapsed.

33.The Secretary to the Environment and Forests Department directed the PCCF to explain as to how the first respondent would be held responsible for Rs.9,88,780/- when the Inquiry Authority held that he was not responsible for any loss.

34.The PCCF wrote a detailed letter dated 21.08.2006 to the first petitioner explaining how his conclusions are correct and how the conclusions of the Inquiry Authority was not correct. The same is found at page Nos.279 to 291 of the Current File.

35.The Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 21.11.2006 to the first respondent holding that he was responsible for the loss to the tune of Rs.9,88,780/- and he was directed to furnish his further representation, if any, to the Government within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. This was in substitution to its earlier letter dated 27.11.2000. In the said letter dated 21.11.2006, there was nothing mentioned about the report of the PCCF dated 22.06.2005 and 21.08.2006. However, it is very clear from the said order dated 21.11.2006 that the first petitioner came to the conclusion that the first respondent was solely responsible for the loss of Rs.9,88,780/- based on the reports of PCCF referred to above and the reports of the PCCF were not furnished to the first respondent. Further more, the exercise made by the PCCF behind the back of the first respondent revising the enquiry report is not permissible and is in flagrant violations of principle of natural justice.