IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2539 of 2009 Between: V. Rama Mohan Rao S/o. Narayana Murthy Social Forestry Range, Niziveedu, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranyabhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Conservator of Forests, Planning and Extension Circle, Vijayawada Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the orders passed by the Honourable Tribunal in O.A.No. 10073 of 2008 dt. 3-2-2009 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequentially declare that the Charge Memo issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc NO. 603/2008/A1 dt. 24-9-2008 is contrary to the orders passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Ref. No. 21590/2008/PAX-1 dt. 17-5-2008 and Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. & CCA Rules and Contrary to the Full Bench Judgment of the High Court reported in 2006(1) ALT-661 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to the Article of charge issued by the 3rd Respondent in Rc NO. 603/2008/A1 dt. 24-9-2008 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.2539 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 3.2.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.10073 of 2008 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently declare the charge memo dated 24.9.2008 issued by the third respondent as contrary to the orders dated 17.5.2008 passed by the second respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1975 and was converted as Forest Section Officer in the year 1979. Further he was promoted to the post of Deputy Range Officer, in the year,2001. Subsequently, he was posted as In-charge Forest Range Officer of Social Forestry Division, Vijayawada and worked in the same capacity from July,2005 to February,2008. The petitioner belongs to Zone-II and in the seniority list of Deputy Range Officers of the concerned circle he stood at serial No.2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has called for information from the Conservator of Forests to fill up the post of Forest Ranger Officer. Accordingly, the information was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator and the petitioner’s name was included in the panel, but he was not considered for the post of Forest Range Officer solely on the ground that articles of charge issued on 24.9.2008 is pending against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the above O.A. 3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has dismissed the O.A. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that in the proceedings dated 17.05.2009, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests specifically directed the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada to submit the draft articles of charge for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner and one K.J. Wilson, but the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada without submitting the same, has issued impugned order dated 24.9.2008 directing the petitioner to submit his written statement to the articles of charge framed against him and it is contrary to the Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. & CCA Rules and the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada, is not competent authority to issue impugned order dated 24.09.2008. The learned counsel further contends that since the alleged misconduct against the petitioner with regard to the preparation of estimates and check measuring of work took place when he was in-charge of the Forest Range Officer, the competent authority to initiate proceedings is the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, but not the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada. He further contended that even though the articles of charge were issued on 24.9.2008, the respondent authorities so far have not conducted any enquiry. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services I submits that the petitioner was holding additional in-charge of Forest Range Officer for some time, but his substantive post is Deputy Range Officer and the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings as per the relevant Rules. The learned Government Pleader further submits that merely holding Additional post of Forest Range Officer for certain period does not by itself confer any status of Forest Range Officer so as to take the plea that the Conservator of Forests is not the competent authority. 6. We have perused the record. It is to be seen that the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Deputy Range Officer and he was not regularly appointed as Forest Range Officer. He was given additional in-charge of Forest Range Officer and during the period of In-charge Forest Range Officer, he committed the alleged misconduct in preparation of estimates and check measuring of work. Since the substantive post held by the petitioner is Deputy Range Officer, the proceedings dated 24.9.2008 were issued by the respondent No.3- the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada. Mere direction of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada to submit draft articles of charge against the petitioner does not confer any right on the petitioner to say that Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada is not competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings dated 24.9.2008 issued by the Conservator of Forests, Vijayawada are vitiated. Further when the petitioner has subjected himself before the disciplinary authority by duly submitting his written statement to the articles of charge on 9.10.2008, now he cannot say that the articles of charge has been issued by an incompetent authority. The respondent authorities have not considered the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Forest Range Officer in view of the issuance of articles of charge. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 06.04.2009 Stp even though the petitioner while working as Forest Range Officer has committed irregularities but his substantive post is Deputy Range Officer. For promotion of Deputy Range Officers of Zone-II to the post of Forest Range Officer, a panel for the year 2008-09 is under preparation. The petitioner’s name also included in the panel and placed before the D.P.C. for its recommendations. It is for the D.P.C. to assess the merits and suitability of the petitioner and other candidates and dismissed the O.A. His case before the Tribunal was that the alleged misconduct pertains to the period from July,2005 to February,2008 and he has subjected himself before the disciplinary authority by duly submitting his explanation to the articles of charge on 9.10.2008. The charge framed while he was holding the post of Additional Charge for the period 2005 to Feburary,2008 with regard to preparing the estimates and check measuring works. The proceedings dated 17.05.2008 were passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, whereas the impugned orders were passed by the Conservator of Forests. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, held that while petitioner was working as Forest Range Officer has committed irregularities but his substantive post is Deputy Range Officer. For promotion of Deputy Range Officers of Zone-II to the post of Forest Range Officer, a panel for the year 2008- 09 is under preparation. The petitioner’s name also included in the panel and placed before the D.P.C. for its recommendations. It is for the D.P.C. to assess the merits and suitability of the petitioner and other candidates and dismissed the O.A. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}