In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a departmental inquiry order imposing a three-year stoppage of increment. The High Court rejected the petitioner's unsubstantiated defenses and dismissed the petition, finding the punishment order justified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. No.29381/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 10.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO. 29381 OF 2013
B.M.Bomman .. Petitioner
- Vs -
The District Forest Officer cum
Deputy Director,
Anamalai Reserve Tiger,
Udumalai,
Thirupur Division. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in Proceedings Se.Mu.Aa.No.1576/2011/P dated 26.03.2012
passed by the respondent herein and quash the same and further direct the respondent to pay all monetary benefits and other consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.M.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr. S.Prabhu, AGP
_________ W.P. No.29381/2013
ORDER
The petitioner was working in the respondent division. While serving thus,
a charge memo was issued to the petitioner. The charge alleged against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with 11 Forest Watchers arrested one sandalwood smuggler at Periyasaympu Forests based on certain tip off and seized sandal woods and cell phones. However, since mahazar and 'H' Namoona were not record and the statement of the accused persons were not recorded, the charge memo was issued. The main charge was that the petitioner did not inform the incident to the higher authority, viz., respondent herein. The petitioner denied all the charges and, therefore, an enquiry was conducted on 04.07.2011 and the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the charges proved. The petitioner was provided with the enquiry report on 05.03.2012 and his explanation was called for to which he submitted his final explanation on 19.03.2012. However, not satisfied with the said explanation, the respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative
effect. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present petition has been filed.
did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel
_________ W.P. No.29381/2013
further submitted that all the sandal woods are in the respondents custody and there is no loss incurred to the Government, and, therefore, imposition of major punishment is unwarranted as it will affect the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that not only the petitioner alone is responsible, but equally, the other persons, who accompanied the petitioners were also responsible. However, no action has been taken against them. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report does not disclose the basis of the materials on which the enquiry officer has predicated his findings, and, therefore, leniency be shown to the petitioner.
have been awarded, however leniently the present punishment has been
awarded, which calls for no interference.
appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
_________ W.P. No.29381/2013
relief as sought for.
_________ W.P. No.29381/2013
has rightly imposed the punishment, and in the absence of any substantiating material placed by the petitioner before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the findings and the punishment
imposed on the petitioner and, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
_________ W.P. No.29381/2013
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
jrs/GLN
W.P. NO. 29381 OF 2013
10.07.2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the departmental inquiry punishment order stopping increment for three years should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner has substantiated the explanation for the alleged charges to warrant leniency or quashing of punishment.
B.M.Bomman
The District Forest Officer cum Deputy Director, Anamalai Reserve Tiger
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
