D.Man Singh Vs The State of Telangana

D.Man Sing h, S/o. Devija,^{Agedabout41 years, occ. Forest BeatOfficer,} Kommugudem Beat,^{O/o. The Forest Range Officer,} Satlupally Range, Sattupally Forest Division,^{KhammamDistrict}

¶12

..PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its SpecialChiefSecretary to Govt} ' Environment, Forests,^{Scienceand TechnologyDepartment, Secretariat,} Hyderabad^- 500 022

¶15

The Principal chief^{conservatorof Forests and Head of the ForestForce} (HoFF), Telangana, Aranya Bhavan,^{Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004}

¶16

The chief conservator of^{Forests/ conservator of Forests,Bhadradri} Kothagudem Circle,^Warangal

¶17

The chief conservator^{of Forests/ conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle,} Khammam

¶18

The District Forest Officer,^{KhammamDistrict,Khammam}

¶19

The District Forest Officer,^{Bhadradri Kothagudem District Kothagudem}

¶20

The Forest Divisional^{Officer, Palvancha Division, Palvancha,Bhadradri} Kothagudem District

¶21

The Forest Divisional^{Officer,SattupallyDivision'SattupallyKhammam} District

¶22

The Forest Range Officer,^{DammapetRange, Sattupally ForestDivision,} Khammam District

¶23

't0.The Forest Range Officer, Aswaraopet Range, Palvancha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

...RESPONDENTS

I

i I I i t I t I rI

Ir a

l g l f

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{)!-ayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High C.r urt may be pleased} to issue a Writ, order or direction, more^particularly one^{in the nature of a Writof} Mandamus declaring the action of fifth respondent in is;^ting the^impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.4993/2013/S8, dated 08.05.20'15 undr:^Rule 20^{of APCS} (CC&A) Rules, 199'l awarding punishment of stoppage of⁽¹⁾ next Annual Grade lncrement with cumulative effect besides recovery of forest^{dantrge worth Rs.B,377l} to recover in B equal monthly installments^(i.e, 8th installm(^nt of^Rs.1377)and consequential modification of the^punishment i.e., without^{curr ulative effect by the} fourth respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.970/201 5-M1(A), dated^{1 '1 .1 )} 2016 and^rejection of the revision petition by the second^{res6xndenUPCCFvide} Proc.No.1365/20'17lD&A.3 dated 27.08.2018 as arbitrary, ill:;al and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same as there are no merits as per the Forest Code 156 and 157 and Rule 13 of Telangana Forest Olf^rnces, Compounding and Prosecution Rules, 1969 and consequently direct the rer;,ondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the^post of Forest Sectic 1Officer/Forester^as petitioner is fully eligible and qualified.

¶30

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu-r stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may t r^pleased to suspend the operation of impugned proceedings in Rc.No.4993/20'l 3,'{ 8, dated 08.05.2015 issued by the fifth respondent ,hd .onr"qr"ntial modification c f the punishment i.e., I 'without cumulative effect" vidd Proc.Rc.No.970/2015-M1(A) Jated 11.'10.20'16 by the fourth respondent and dejection I of the revision^pe ti ion by the second respondenUPCCF vide Proc.ilo.1365/2017iD&A.3 dated 17.08.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUNDRATI RAMAN GOUD

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR FORESTS

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

l.: +. [;

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶37

AT HYDERABAD

¶38

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶39

WRIT PETITI ON No.29788 ot 2023

DATE:02.12.2025

BETWEEN:

D. Man Singh

..petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

¶46

Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Govt.,

¶47

Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶48

.respondents

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Heard Sri G. Raman Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner, learned

¶51

2

¶52

SNJ /.P. o.29788 0f 2021

¶53

Assistant Government Pleader for Forest:r appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶54

2. The oetitioner aooroached the Cou rt seekinq praYer as under:

¶55

"......to issue a Writ, order or directic t, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of lrt ndamus declaring the action of fifth respondent in rss Jlng the impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.4993 /20t3/a 3, dated 08.05.2015 under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&t ) Rules, 1991 awarding punishment of stoppage of i1) next Annual Grade Increment with cumulati r' ) effect besides recovery of forest damage worth t( .8,317 / - to recover in 8 equal monthly installmentr (i.e., 8th installment of Rs.1377) and cons:quential modification of the punishment i.e., 'without cumulative effect" by the fourth respon: lnt vide Proc.Rc.No.970/2015-M1(A), dated 11.10.2116 and rejection of the revision petition by fh ( second respondent/PCCF vrde Proc.No.1365/20 7/D&A.3 dated 27.08.2018 as arbitrary, illegal and ar ainst the principles of natural justice and set aside th€ same as there are no merits as per the Forest Cod r l-56 and 157 and Rule 13 of Telangana Forest )ffences, Compounding and Prosecution Rules, t )59 and consequently direct the respondents to ccr sider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Forest

¶56

3

¶57

SNJ W.P.No.29788 of 2023

¶58

Section Officer/Forester as petitioner is fully eligible and qualified and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^proper in the circu mstances of the case."

¶59

3 The case of the Detitio ner in brief as oer the arra?lltaittc m - de in the a th vlt aA lrv th petitioners in support of the oresent writ petition as as u nder:

¶60

i) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Beat Officer in 2007 and was^given additional charge of the distant and vulnerable Anantharam Beat in 2012. While the petitioner was working there, the Deputy Range Officer reported alleged encroachments and illicit felling in Compt. No.267, based on which the 5th respondent issued Articles of Charge under Rule 20 of the APCS^(CC&A) Rules, 1991, alleging negligence and misconduct against the^petitioner.

¶61

ii) The petitioner submitted his defence stating that the petitioner had booked POR cases, transported seized material to the Timber Depot, and that the Deputy Range

¶62

4

¶63

sN,l A P.No-29788 of 2023

¶64

Officer had delayed reporting by seven montlr: and falsely attributed unrelated incidents to the petitioner.

¶65

iii) However, without properly considering hi; submissions or his limited duties under Forest Code 156 an I 157, the 5th respondent imposed the punishment of stofrl ,age of one increment with cumulative effect and recovery ( t Rs.8,377 /- The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly modified to "without cumulative effect", and ttr rreafter filed a revision petition, which was rejected wit tout proper examination of facts. Aggrieved by the same, t re petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ )etition.

¶66

4. PERU E D THE RECORD:

¶67

A) The r levant oortion of the roceerl nos of the resoo ndent No.2-Prin cipal Chief Con:;:rvator of Forest & Head of the Forest Force, Tela oa na Hvdera bad, vide Proc.No.13 65 20L7 lD -t A.3 dated 27.O8.20L8, extra hereu der:

¶68

5

¶69

5NJ w.P.No.29788 of 2023

¶70

"Aggrieved with the above orders, Sri D.Mansingh, ABO, has submitted revision petataon to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Force, Telangana State; Hyderabad.

¶71

The Revision Petition of Sri D.Mansingh, Assistant Beat Officer, has been examined wath reference to the remarks of the chief Conservator of Forests/Conservator of Forests, Khammam and records connected to this case. It is observed that there is no valid reason for interfering with the orders of the Appellate Authority and the punishment awarded is €ommensurate with the charges held proved. Hence, the Revision Petition deserves no consideration and the same is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the following orders are issued:-

¶72

ORDER:-

¶73

The Revision Petition of Sri D.Mansingh, Assistant Beat Officer. Khammam Division against the modified punishment of Stoppage of one Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.8,377/- in (8) equal installments vide Conservator of Forests, Khammam his proceedings in Rc.No.970/2015/M1(A), dated 11.i0.2016, is hereby rejected.

¶74

The order is issued in duplicate Sri D.Mansingh, Assistant Beat Offcer, Khammam Division is requested

¶75

6

¶76

sll'l ' '.P.No_29788 of 2023

¶77

to resubmit the duplicate copy with dated acknowledgment immediately. "

¶78

Learned counsel aooearino on bell rlf of the petitioner mainlv contends that, pursug nt to the tmDuo ned oroceed inqs dated o8 .05.2015 1 issued bv resDondent No.5. the Detitioner t,Proached onden 4 wh vide f linqs No, 970/2 1s-M1(A) d ted 11.10.20 16, m< dified the Dun ish I ent tmDose on O8.O5.2 15 bv -'espondent N,1 5an d naccad ord rc nhcarv tn a^C UN^da t:

¶79

ORDER:

¶80

"The punishment awarded by the t)ivisional Forest Omcer, Khammam that stoppage of o-: annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide )roc. No. 499312013-s8, dt. 08.05.2015 against Sri B I' crnsingh, Assistant Beat Officer, Yathalakunta Beat of t; rthupally Range Additional Charge of Anantham Beat of Dammapeta Range of Khammam Division i; hereby modified to that of stoppage of one annr al grade increment without cumulative effect besides re :overy of Rs.8,377/- in (8) installments, 8th instaltrr I rt is Rs. L,3771-".

¶81

A revision petition against this orde- lies with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, | )langana,

¶82

7

¶83

SNJ W.P.No.29788 of 2023

¶84

Hyderabad if preferred wrthin⁽⁹⁰⁾ days from the date of receipt of this orders."

¶85

I NANDC NC

¶86

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner submits that, against the impugned^proceedings dated 11.10.2016 of respondent No.4, the^{petitioner preferred} a revision before respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, vide impugned proceedings dated 27.08.2018, rejected the revision without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the present writ petition.

¶87

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that the initial^punishment dated 08.05.2015 imposed by respondent No.5, awarding the major penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect along with recovery of forest damage, was later modified by respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 11.10.2016 to stoppage of one annual grade increment "without cumulative effect", besides recovery of forest

¶88

8

¶89

SJ of 2023 ^/.P.No.29788

¶90

damage of Rs.8,377/- to be recovered in elght^{-rstallments,} the Bth installment being Rs.1,3771-. The resl) )ndent No.4 modified the punishment without setting asicl: the original order dated 08.05.2015, without assigning any easons. The revisional authority, respondent No.2, nechanically confirmed the same without assigning r{l tsons, vide proceedinqs dated 27.08.2018. Therefore, t.r : impugned orders passed by respondent No.4 and res[) rrrdent No.2 stand vitiated.

¶91

8, Learned counsel appearing on belr rlf of the respondents does not dispute the fact that tf e impugned orders passed by respondent No.4 dated 1l 0.2016 and respondent No.2 dated 27.08.2018, as borne : r record, do not contain any reasons. It is also evident frcrr the record that against the order of respondent \to.4 dated 11.10.2016, the petitioner preferred a rer' sion before respondent No.2, and respondent No.2 rejec., rd the same unilaterally, without application of mind, withc ut assigning any reasons/ and without examining the sub_ r ct matter in detait

¶92

9

¶93

5N,J W.P.No.297E8 of 2OZ3

¶94

The Aoex Court in th iudoment reoorted in 2 i'l 10 9 SCC 496 in "Kranti As oc Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others" atD ata 47 observed as under :

¶95

Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Coutt holds:

¶96

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶97

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶98

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of^justice that^justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶99

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of^judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶100

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶101

(D Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by

¶102

r

¶103

10

¶104

sN,l w.P.No.29788 of 2021

¶105

judicial, quasi-judicial and even by adn itistrative bodies

¶106

(g) Reasons facilitate the process o judicial review by su perior courts.

¶107

(h) The ongoing judiciat trend in att :ountries committed to rule of law and constitutional q. /ernance is in favour of reasoned decisions based o,t ielevant facts. This is vtrtually the lifeblood of judicia, lecisionmaking justifying the principle that reason is ,I e soul of justice.

¶108

(i) )udicial or even quasi-judiciat opin ( ns these days can be as different as the judges and a tthorities who deliver them. All these decisions :( rve one common purpose which is to demonstrate t: t reason that the relevant factors have been o tjectively considered. This is important for sustai, ing the litigants' faith in the justice detivery system.

¶109

(j) Insistence on reason is a requireme,t for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶110

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authu ty is not candid enough about his/her decision-makir ( process then it is impossible to know whether tt.t, person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of preced,nt or to principles of incrementalism.

¶111

(l) Reasons in support of decisions nust be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of rt asons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equat:1 with a va lid decisio n - making process.

¶112

11

¶113

SNJ w.P.No.29788 of 2023

¶114

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

¶115

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of strasbu rg e^j u risp rudence.

¶116

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

¶117

10. TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION:

¶118

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶119

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents,

¶120

c) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgment referred to and extracted above

¶121

72

¶122

5NJ
V P.No.29788 of 2023

¶123

t

¶124

d) The discussion and conclusion irrrived at paragraph Nos.6 to 9 in the present order,

¶125

The writ oetition is allowed. The imprl oned order vide Proc. No. L365120L7lD&A.3 dated _ t7.08.2018 tssuedbvt e revrsi nal aut oritv, i-e., t ! e Princioal Chief Cons ervator of Forests & Head ofF g rest Force, Telanqana. Hvdera bad. is set aside. Th matter is remanded to r SDondent No.2 for recons I Ieration of the s u biect issue, i.e.. the revision orefe rrred bv the oetitioner aqainst the order dated 11.10. jl )16 oassed bv resDondent No.4 im osrnq the pun shmentof ston aoeo fon ean nual orade incre me nt without cumul ve effect. The responden No.2 is dire dto Dass a^propriate, reasoned orders withirr - a oeriod of four 4) weeks from the date of receiot ( faco pv of this order, strictlv in accorda nce to lrw and i conformitv with the orincioles of natural I rstice, after providinq an oooortunitv of oersonal he; rino to the oetitioner, dulv examininq the reievant rr::ord and all leoaI oleasra edb vth e Det It on r tn _! he revision Detitiona nd a ll the Ieoal D eas to be out l orth bv the

¶126

13

¶127

SN,., w.P.No.29788 of 2023

¶128

! I I I I If t ii Ii

¶129

oetationer duran the heaflno to be ondu bv the 2td resDon dent bv providinq reasonabl C ODDOrtuni to the oetitio ner a nd dulv co mmuna cate the decisio on s cti u e er. ev r er

¶130

shall be no order as to costs.

¶131

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition,

¶132

shall stand closed.

¶133

SD/. A.H.S,^{GOWRI SHANKAR} SISTANT^REGISTR

¶134

//TRUE^COPY//

¶135

SECTION^{OFFICE R}