P. Chellachamy vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, The Conservator of Forests and The District Forest Officer

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner, who is working as a Forest Watcher, has given room for issuance of a charge memo with the following 4

charges.

(i) failed to prevent felling of trees at Kumily beat, at Koodalur Range and not registered any case.

(ii) failed to report in the diary and hide till the Special Squad found such fallings and thereby assisted the offenders.

(iii) failed to report such events to higher officials.

(iv) dereliction of duty and thereby caused loss to the government to the tune of Rs. 33,000/-.

After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the allegations. The 3rd respondent/disciplinary authority,

having been not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, ordered for enquiry. The enquiry officer, after giving reasonable

opportunities to the petitioner as well the respondents, completed the enquiry and submitted his report, holding that the petitioner was found guilty

of all the 4 charges levelled against him. Based on the second show cause notice issued, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The 3rd

respondent/disciplinary authority, after going through the findings of the enquiry officer and being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the

petitioner, issued an order of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect by proceedings dated 30.09.2000 and in the said

proceedings, the 3rd respondent/District Forest Officer, has concluded as follows:

During the enquiry the forest watcher has confessed the offence of felling trees and that the felling list was taken by the special party in the presence

of the petitioner and though he has signed in the felling list he has not recorded any objections.

In view of the above proceedings, the punishment was imposed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the punishment of stoppage of increment, the

petitioner has filed an appeal to the Conservator of Forest, raising several grounds. But, the Conservator of Forest rejected the appeal on merits

by order dated 26.12.2001. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner has filed revision petition to the 1st respondent through proper

channel, but the same was also rejected, holding that the revision petition has not been filed within the time frame.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not suffered any punishment in the past, except this one,

which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect will have

a huge bearing upon his pensionary benefits. On that basis, prayed for allowing the present writ petition.

In reply, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that once the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved by the

enquiry officer and the same was also affirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner once again preferred revision petition before the 1st

respondent and the 1st respondent also found the punishment imposed against the petitioner, is in order. Therefore, it was submitted that this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed in the

revision petition.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Admittedly, it is the case of dereliction of duty as well as failure to report felling of trees to the higher officials. Therefore, the petitioner was

issued with charge memo with 4 charges mentioned above. The petitioner/Forest Watcher, after receiving the charge memo, submitted his

explanation. A mere reading of the explanation offered by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority also does not evoke any interference. The

enquiry officer, after completing the enquiry proceedings, submitted his detailed report holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. Thereafter, the

disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment of stoppage of

increment for 3 years with cumulative effect, the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged by way of appeal as well as revision. Both the appellate

authority as well as revisional authority have confirmed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years. Therefore, as rightly contended by the

learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court does not wish to interfere with the quantum of punishment, and accordingly, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No Costs.