Disposed

Jeyakumar.M v. The Principal chief Conservator of Forest

Madras HC1 Oct 2024WP(MD)/2068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Forest Guard challenged a 2018 charge memo, contending that though the disciplinary enquiry concluded in 2019, no final orders had been passed. The court declined to quash the charge memo but directed the competent authority to pass final orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings within twelve weeks.

Jeyakumar.M Vs The Principal chief Conservator of Forest — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

W.P(MD)No.2068 of 2024 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)No.2080 of 2024

M.Jeyakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Head Quarters, Guindy Velacherry Main Road, Kanniyapuram Checkpost near, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶11

2.The District Forest Officer cum Wildlife Warden, Kanniyakumari District, Vadacherry, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District – 629 001.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the 2^nd respondent proceedings in charge Memo No.P2/11886/2017-2, dated 14.02.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to join the promotion post allotted in 2023 to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The instant writ petition has been filed by a Forest Guard, challenging a charge memo issued by the second respondent on 14.02.2018 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

¶20

2.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the District Forest Officer of Tirunelveli Range was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and he has submitted his report in the year 2019 itself. However, so far final orders have not been passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, he has challenged the charge memo.

¶21

3.I have carefully perused the charge memo and this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds have been raised by the writ petitioner for quashing the charge memo. However, according to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the first respondent is the competent authority to pass final orders based upon enquiry report submitted by the District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶22

4.Considering the fact that the enquiry was completed in the year 2019

¶23

and so far, no final orders have been passed, this Court is inclined to direct the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/4

¶25

first respondent herein to pass final orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

5.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶28

01.10.2024

¶29

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RJR

¶30

¶31

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Head Quarters, Guindy Velacherry Main Road, Kanniyapuram Checkpost near, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶32

2.The District Forest Officer cum Wildlife Warden, Kanniyakumari District, Vadacherry, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District - 629 001.

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶36

RJR

¶37

W.P(MD)No.2068 of 2024

¶38

01.10.2024

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Jeyakumar.M v. The Principal chief Conservator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyakumar.M v. The Principal chief Conservator of Forest

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

K.Sathya Devi Vs Director of School Education

Manimoli. P Vs The State Project Director

P.Vadivel Vs Balumuthu

Vasanthalatha B Vs The Director of Elementary Education

Thalavai Rajan S Vs The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services

S. Sampath Vs M. Daniel Salmon