Disposed

Sujatha I.F.S. v. The state of Tamilnadu rep by

Madras HC13 Feb 2024WP/13029/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Indian Forest Service Officer sought a writ of mandamus to restrain a staff association from media harassment during pendency of representations to the state. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the State to decide it within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to petitioner to submit representation and State to act within four weeks.

Sujatha I.F.S. Vs The state of Tamilnadu rep by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No.13029/2021 and W.M.P.No.13837 of 2021

Sujatha

Petitioner

/vs/

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, P & AR Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶11

State rep. by its Principal Secretary, E & F Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶12

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet,

¶13

Chennai – 15.

¶14

Tamil Nadu Forest Staff's Association, Rep. by its State President, Sivaprakasam, Forest Range Officer,

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶18

Working Plan Division, Tamil Nadu Foret Academy Division, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.

¶19

P.Palanisamy

¶20

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to forbear the fourth respondent and its Office bearers and members of the Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association from in any way addressing / giving interviews to the social media namely Whatsapp, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Television Channels, News Papers and any other medias about the petitioner till the first respondent decides / considers the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2020, 02.06.2021.

¶21

For Petitioner ... Ms.G.Selvi George

¶22

For Respondents ... Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate for R1 to R3

¶23

Mr.A.R.Karthik Lakshmanan for R4 & R5

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the fourth respondent and its Office bearers and members of the Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association from in any way addressing / giving interviews to the social media about the petitioner till the first respondent decides / considers her representation dated 10.02.2020 & 02.06.2021.

¶29

The petitioner is an Indian Forest Service Officer belonging to 2007 batch and she is presently serving as Conservator of Forest at Vellore District. The petitioner has been executing her duties in true letter and sprit and there is no adverse remarks against her. The Forest Rangers are subordinate to the petitioner and hence they are obliged to report to her and submit their diaries about their daily routine work. Since the petitioner is the disciplinary authority, it is her duty to take disciplinary action against the erring officials and hence she has taken such actions against some of the Forest Rangers. In view of that some of the staff under the shelter of the Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association, have started to hold meetings, issuing notices, pamphlets, etc., by raising false accusations against the petitioner

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶33

in the name of the assocaition. Subsequently, the petitioner had issued charge memo to some of the staff members and thereafter they started to behave eratically and do things in an inebriated mood. Hence, the petitioner has given representation to the first respondent to derecognize the Tamil Nadu Forest Staff Association and on which so far no action has been taken.

¶34

3.Ms.G.Selvi George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that despite the first respondent know pretty well about the integrity and honesty of the petitioner that she is being harassed by some of the staff members in the name of staff association, no action has been taken against the concerned and that have emboldened the erring elements to continue their mischiefs.

¶35

Mr.S.Rajesh, the learned Government Advocate, submitted that the first respondent is not in receipt of the representation given by the petitioner so far; the petitioner herself being a District Level Officer, can send appropriate report or proposal to the Government through proper

¶36

Page 4 of 8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶39

channel for taking appropriate action against the association.

¶40

The very object of forming the Staff Association is for the purpose of welfare of the staff and not to harass the colleagues or superiors. When disciplinary action is enforced by any strict officer, no intimidation can be allowed to be made against her by making use of the association banner. Such act on the part of any staff cannot be viewed in any less serious terms. If such mischiefs are allowed to continue, that will spoil the very discipline of the department. Even in the counter, the superiors of the petitioner has not made any complaints against the petitioner by stating that she is an irresponsible or erratic officer. In such case, they ought to have come to her rescue when some mischief is targeted against her. However the first respondent disowns the receipt of any representation sent by the petitioner so far.

¶41

It is open to the petitioner to send a fresh representation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall take

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶45

appropriate action in accordance with the rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner is also entitled to send a report to the Government through proper channel and as well as marking an advance copy to the Govenrment, in order to initiate action against the concerned.

¶46

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed. No costs.

¶47

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

13.02.2024

¶49

Index: Yes Speaking order bkn

¶50

Page 6 of 8

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.No.13029/2021

¶53

To:

¶54

The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, P & AR Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶55

The Principal Secretary, E & F Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶56

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

¶57

Page 7 of 8

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13029/2021

R.N.MANJULA ,J.

bkn

W.P. No.13029/2021

13.02.2024

Page 8 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sujatha I.F.S. v. The state of Tamilnadu rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha I.F.S. v. The state of Tamilnadu rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Devar Vs The Director General of Police

A.Princy Christy, Vs The Secretary

D.Leo and another Vs Jose Thangaiah and another

K.Panneerselvam (Retd), Vs The Chairman

R.Venugopal Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation

Dr.K.R.Periasami Vs The Secretary to Government