Petitioner challenged an order confirming his punishment for tampering with forest records. The Supreme Court quashed the order, holding the Appellate Authority failed to apply independent mind.
Quashing of G.O.(1D) No.8 dated 11.01.2011; matter remitted to Appellate Authority within 8 weeks for independent reconsideration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.03.2017
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.3974 of 2011
and WMP No.5792 of 2016
K.Sekar .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in G.O.(1D) No.8, Environment and Forest (Va.1) Department, dated 11.01.2011 issued by the first respondent confirming the order in Proc.No.T1/62203/2001, dated 28.11.2007, issued by the second respondent and quash the same, and pass such suitable orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohideen Pitchai
For Respondents : Mr.M.Santhana Raman,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in G.O.(1D)No.8, Environment and Forest Department, dated 11.01.2011, issued by the first respondent confirming the order in Proc.No.T1/62203/2001, dated 28.11.2007, issued by the second respondent and quash the same.
made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the petitioner was working as Forest Ranger in Tamil Nadu Forest Department from 28.01.1987. He was also holding the post of Forest Ranger from 10.11.2000 to 14.09.2001 at Chengam Range, Tiruppatthur Division.
2.1. During the said period, with regard to a violation, a charge memo had been issued against the petitioner on 02.05.2005, wherein, three charges were framed against him. Along with the petitioner, four other employees, working in the said forest range, had also been implicated, and against whom also, similar three charges had been issued. An enquiry was conducted. Though, it was separately conducted in respect of each of the delinquent, including the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted by the same Enquiry Officer.
2.2. After completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer filed a report dated 31.12.2006, whereby, he had concluded that the first charge and the third charge framed against the petitioner were not proved, and only the second charge was proved. The second charge is that the petitioner had, with an ill-intention, tampered the records.
2.3. Pursuant to the said enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, further explanation was called for from the petitioner and on receipt of the further representation from the petitioner, finally, an order of punishment was inflicted on the petitioner on 28.11.2007, whereby, the petitioner's increment had been postponed for two years without cumulative effect and the said punishment will not affect his pension.
2.4. As against the said punishment, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, that is, State Government, and he had also given a further representation to the Appellate Authority.
2.5. The said appeal filed by the petitioner dated 26.03.2009, and also the further representation given by the petitioner dated 13.11.2009, were decided, of-course, on the basis of the opinion rendered by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short "the Service Commission") through their opinion dated 09.08.2010, and finally, the present impugned order was issued by the Government, that is, the first respondent, in G.O.(1D)No.8, Environment and Forest Department, dated 11.01.2011, whereby, the first respondent has confirmed the order of punishment inflicted on the petitioner, as against which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3.1. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Government, that is, Appellate Authority, after having considered the merits of the issue, as raised by the said delinquents, by independently applying the mind, has passed the final order in G.O.(3D)No.26, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.05.2013, in respect of the said D.Sudhakarraj, and also in G.O.(3D).No.27, Environment and Forest Department, dated 08.05.2013, in respect of the said A.Chinnasamy. In the said Government Orders, the appeal filed by the said delinquents had been allowed by the Appellate Authority, and thereby, the punishment with regard to the second charge, said to have been proved, as per the Enquiry Officer's report in respect of those delinquents, had been set aside.
3.2. Learned counsel would submit that in view of these orders, that is, G.O.(3D)Nos.26 and 27, Environment and Forest Department, dated 07.05.2013 and 08.05.2013 respectively, the respondents have vindicated the stand of the petitioner that the petitioner also was not responsible for such alleged tampering of record and absolutely there is no material to show that the petitioner had involved in such violation.
3.3. Learned counsel would also submit that when similar charges were framed against five persons, including the petitioner, and similar findings were given by the Enquiry Officer stating that the second charge against all the
delinquents, including the petitioner, had been proved, and once, the Appellate Authority, has interfered with the said punishment awarded against two of the delinquents, by independently applying their mind, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, certainly, the petitioner would also be entitled to get the same treatment. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner's case has also not been independently considered by the Appellate Authority, the impugned order herein is also liable to be set aside.
4.1. Learned Additional Government Pleader would also contend that in so far other two delinquents, namely, B.Sudhakarraj and A.Chinnasamy are concerned, the Appellate Authority, has considered the entire material on record and has found that those two delinquents had not been connected with the alleged violation, especially, in connection with the sandalwood report in STOR No.15 of 2001. The learned Additional Government Pleader, would further submit that, however, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the opinion offered by the Service Commission, it is clearly mentioned the following :
**///// 5/ njh;thizak; nkny Ie;jhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l fojj;jpy; gpd;tUkhW jdJ fUj;jpid tH';fpa[s;sJ ;/?
Ch;ft[z;lDhu; gPl;. tdth;. tdf;fhg;ghsh; kw;Wk; tdf;fhtyUld; bjd;kiy fhg;g[f;fhl;oy; 10/09/2001 md;W re;jd ku tdf;Fw;wk; fz;Lgpoj;J xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; vr; eKdh gjpt[ bra;J Fw;wthspia md;iwa jpdk; jpU/nf/nrfh;. tdr;rufh; (kDjhuh;) Kd;g[ M$h;gLj;jpa[s;sdh;/ gotk;?95I jahh; bra;j tdf;fhg;ghsh;. ifg;gw;wg;gl;l re;jdkuj;jpd; mst[ 7/000 (VG) fpnyh vd Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;/ Mdhy; ifg;gw;wg;gl;l 9 Jz;L re;jd ku';fs; Kiwahd tprhuiz mikg;ig nrh;e;j mYtyh;fs; tPuhde;jy; tdj;Jiw CHpah; FoapUg;gpy; 14/09/2001 md;W kDjhuh; Kd;dpiyapy; ifg;gw;wp mij vilapl;lnghJ mjd; mst[ 18/950 fpnyh vd fz;lwpag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,e;j re;jdkuj;Jz;Lfs; nkw;go re;jd kuf;Fw;w tHf;F 15-2001 bjhlh;g[ilaJ vd kDjhuuhy; xg;g [f;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; Mtz';fspy; VG fpnyh kl;Lnk fzf;fpy; bfhz;L tug;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,t;thW ifg;gw;wg;gl;l re;jd kuj;jpd; msit Fiwthf Mtz';fspy; fhz;gpj;jjw;F cupa fhuz';fs; kDjhuUf;Fk; , e;epfH;tpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l ,ju tdg;gzpahsh;fSf;Fk; kl;Lnk bjhpe;jpUf;ff;TLk; ,e;j bra;ifapd; K:yk; Fw;wk; bjhlh;ghf Mtz';fs; jtwhd cs;nehf;fj;Jld; jpUj;jk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhfnt (m) jahhpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhfnt bjspthf bjhpa tUfpwJ/ vdnt. kDjhuh; rkh;g;gpj;Js;s
tpsf;fk;. TLjy; tpsf;fk; kw;Wk; kDtpy; nghjpa Kfhe;jpuk; VJkpy;yhj fhuzj;jhy;. kDjhuh; kPjhd epU:gzkhd ,uz;lhtJ Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F Kjd;ik jiyik tdg;ghJfhtyh; mth;fshy; ed;F Muha;e;J mwpe;J tH';fg;gl;Ls;s jz;lidapy; FWf;fPL bra;aj; njitapy;iy vdj; njh;thizak; muRf;F Mnyhrid tH';fpa[s;sJ/ //////**
4.2. By relying upon the said opinion rendered by the Service Commission, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that when there is a specific opinion given by the Service Commission, that in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the said STOR No.15 of 2001, he cannot be equated with the other delinquents, in respect of whom, independent findings had been given by the Appellate Authority, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that those delinquents had no connection whatsoever with the report in STOR No.15 of 2001. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the other cases cannot be equated with the case of the petitioner, and therefore, he submits that the punishment awarded against the petitioner, as confirmed through the impugned order by the first respondent, is based on an independent consideration of the facts of the case, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and hence, the same need not be interfered with.
perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that here also through the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has not confirmed the punishment based on independent reasons. A perusal of the findings given by the Appellate Authority at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order would show that the Appellate Authority centered his decision, only based on the opinion rendered by the Service Commission, as has been given at paragraph 5 of the impugned order, which was extracted above. Further, the Appellate Authority, has simply confirmed the punishment, by giving the following few lines at the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, i.e., paragraph 6 of the impugned order, which reads thus :
///// 6/ jpU/nf/nrfh;. tdr;rufh; muRf;F rkh;g;gpj;Js;s 26/3/2009 ehspl;l rhjhuz kD bjhlh;g[ila Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;J Mfpatw;Wld; murhy; Rakhft[k; ftdkhft[k; Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ Ma;t [f;Fg; gpd; njh;thizaj;jpd; fUj;jpid Vw;W. nkny ,uz;lhtjhfg; gof;fg;gl;l Kjd;ik jiyik tdg;ghJfhtyh; bray;Kiw Mizapy; tH';fg;gl;l jz;lidia vjph;j;J jpU/nf/nrfh;. tdr;rufh;. muRf;F rkh;g;gpj;Js;s 26/3/2009?Mk; ehspl;l rhjhuz kDit epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw muR MizapLfpwJ/
receipt of a copy of this order.
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gg
To
1. The Secretary,
Environment and Forest Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
+2cc to Mr.Mohan, Advocate, S.R.No.17407
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17745
W.P.No.3974 of 2011
KGK(CO)
RS(28/03/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of certiorari lies quashing the Government order confirming the petitioner's punishment for tampering with records.
Whether the Appellate Authority exercised independent reasoning or merely relied on the Service Commission's opinion.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment as other delinquents in similar circumstances.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K.Sekar
The Government of Tamil Nadu
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
R.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
