IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.09.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.43441 of 2006 in OA 1757/2000 C.Krishnan ... Petitioner Versus The Forest Range Officer, Social Forestry Range, Vadipatti ... Respondent PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus by way of transfer of O.A.No.1757 of 2000, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the order of dismissal from service passed by him in his Proc.Na.Ka.No.23/2000 dated 16.02.2000 and quash the same to the extent of the petitioner only. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Purushothaman Government Advocate (Forests) - - - O R D E R The petitioner was engaged as Plot Watcher on daily wages from 01.09.1979 in the protection of forestry plantations. While so, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2000 dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.1757 of 2000 (W.P.No.43441 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2000 of the respondent. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, while admitting the Original Application granted interim stay of the dismissal order on 31.03.2000. Pursuant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the interim order, the petitioner was continued in service as Plot Watcher. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Watcher in the regular post from 06.10.2003 and subsequently, he was promoted as Forest Guard from 15.08.2010. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit. The learned Government Advocate has produced entire files relating to the impugned order. 4. Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.N.Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice, as no enquiry was held. It is submitted that Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was not complied with. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that the petitioner committed grave misconduct and that he refused to receive the notice dated 27.01.2000 to appear for the enquiry on 04.02.2000. Hence, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 16.02.2000. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioner was engaged as Plot Watcher on daily wages from 01.09.1979. The allegation as found in the impugned dismissal order is that the petitioner threatened one Mr.A.R.Shanmuga Nadar and took away the gun from him and also collected Rs.1,000/- as fine, illegally and without any authority. Based on the order dated 18.01.2000 of the District Forest Officer, the respondent held an enquiry on 26.01.2000 and it is stated that the petitioner acted as Deputy Conservator of Forests and collected Rs.1,000/- as bribe. 9. The impugned order dated 16.02.2000 is extracted here- under:- "bghUs;: njhl;l fhtyh;fs;?thog;gl;o rK:ff; fhLfs; rufk;. xG';F Kiw eltof;if ? rk;ge;jkhf/ ghh;it: 1/ rkaey;Y{}h; Ch;bkr;rpFsk; V/Mh;/rz;Kf ehlh; g[fhh; kD ehs; 27/12/1999/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/ nkw;go ,uz;lhtJ kD ehs; ,y;iy/ 3/ kJiu rK:ff; fhLfs; njhl;l td mYtyhpd; e/f/ 3/1//2000 kw;Wk; 18/01/2000 4/ g[fhh; tprhuiz Mtz';fs; ehs;/ 26.01.2000 ghh;it 1?y; fz;l g[fhh; kDtpy; eP';fs; ,UtUk;. thog;gl;o rufk;. fs;spf;Foapy;. ghh;it 1 & 2 y; fz;l g[fhh; kDjhh; ntl;ilahoajhf Jg;ghf;fpia gpL';fpf;bfhz;L. mtiu kpul;o. tdtpy';F Fw;w mguhjj; bjhifahf U:/1000/? (Mapuk;) th';fpf; bfhz;ljhf g[fhh; bfhLf;fg;gl;lijj; bjhlh;e;J. ghh;it 3?y; fz;l nky;epiy mYtyhpd; Mizapd;go vd;dhy; ghh;it 4?y; fz;lgo tprhuiz 26/01/2000?y; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ g[fhh; kDjhuuhy; Twg;gLk; Fw;wr;rhl;L. Iakw epU:gzk; mdjhy;. tdj; Jiwapy; td tpy';F ghJfhg;g[ rl;lk; 1972 , tdtpy';F (ghJfhg;g[) jkpH;ehL tpjp 1975 fspd;go. tdtpy';F Fw;w';fSf;F. td mYtyh;fspd; Fiwe;j gl;rk; Jiwtdg; ghJfthtyh; me;j!;jpy; cs;sth;f;s jhd; , uhrpj; bjhif tpjpf;f tif bra;ag;gl;Ls;s epiyapy;. tdj; Jiwapy; jpdf; Typ mog;gilapy; (Muster Roll) gzpg[hpa[k; epue;ju gzpapy; ,y;yhj jh';fs; ,UtUk;. jd;epiy kwe;J. jdf;F nky; Ie;J go epiyfs; (Stage) jhz;o. Xh; Jiz tdg;ghJfhtyhpd; mjpfhuj;ij ifapy; vLj;Jf; bfhz;L. Xh; ,e;jpa gpui$ia. khpahij ,d;wp ngrp Jg;ghf;fp chpkk; cs;s Xh; Jg;ghf;fpia mthplk; gpo';fp. jd; ifafy; gLj;jpaJk;. nkYk; mtiu kpul;oaJld; U:/1000/? (Mapuk; U:gha;) ifa{l;lhf th';fpa[k; cs;sPh;fs;/ , r;brayhy; jkpH; ehL tdj;Jiwf;F fs';fk; Vw;gLk;go bra;J tpl;Oh;fs;/ Mjyhy; j';fs; ,Uth; nkYk; Fw;wk; epU:gzk; Mdjhy; fPH;f; fz;lthw Miz epWg;gpf;fpd;nwd;/ Miz:? JkpH; ehL tdj; Jiwapy;. kJiu rK:ff; fhLfs; nfhl;lk;. thog;gl;o rK:ff; fhLfs; ruf njhl;l fhtyh;fshf j';fs; ,Utiua[k;. 10/02/2000 fhiy Kjy; epue;ju gzpePf;fk; bra;J ,t;thiz K:yk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;thiz bgw;Wf;bfhz;likf;F xg;ghf ,uz;lhk; gpujpapy; jut[k;/ " 10. The impugned order is based on the report dated 27.12.1999 of one Mr.A.R.Shanmuga Nadar. From the files produced by the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that the said Mr.A.R.Shanmuga Nadar made a complaint on 27.12.1999 to the District Forest Officer, Madurai alleging that the petitioner along with another person waylaid him on 17.12.1999 in Kallikudi Forest area, where his private property is also situated, seized the gun and also forced him to pay Rs.1,000/-. They threatened that if the amount was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not paid, they could prosecute him. The said Mr.A.R.Shanmuga Nadar also made a similar complaint to the District Collector, Madurai and the same is also referred to in the impugned order as Sl.No.2, in the reference column. 11. As per the impugned order, the District Forest Officer passed an order dated 18.01.2000 directing the respondent to hold an enquiry on the complaint made by Mr.Shanmuga Nadar. It is seen from the files that an enquiry took place on 26.01.2000 before the respondent and Mr.Shanmuga Nadar made a statement. It is not known as to how Mr.Shanmuga Nadar appeared for the enquiry on 26.01.2000, since, in the files, there is no notice sent to Mr.Shanmuga Nadar asking him to appear on 26.01.2000. The petitioner was also not asked to appear for any enquiry on 26.01.2000. He was also not issued any charge sheet making allegations. 12. The complaint dated 27.12.1999 of Mr.Shanmuga Nadar sent to the District Forest Officer as well as the complaint dated nil to the Collector, Madurai, were not furnished to the petitioner. In the enquiry on 26.01.2000, the petitioner was not present. The petitioner was not informed about the enquiry. Based on the statement of Mr.Shanmuga Nadar, the petitioner was dismissed from service, as per the impugned order. 13. On the other hand, the counter affidavit states that the petitioner was sent notice on 27.01.2000, directing him to appear for enquiry on 04.02.2000. But, no such notice is referred to in the impugned order. From the files, it seen that a notice dated 27.01.2000 was sent to the petitioner through one Mr.Arunagiri, Forester, but the petitioner refused to receive the notice and the notice was not sent by post. The notice dated 27.01.2000 as found in the files is extracted here-under:- " bghUs;: g[fhh; kD ? tprhuiz nehl;O!; ? xG';F Kiw eltof;if ? rk;ge;jkhf/ ghh;it;: 1/ rkaey;Y{}h; Ch;bkr;rpFsk; V/Mh;/rz;Kf ehlh; g[fhh; kD ehs; 27/12/1999/ 2/ kJiu rK:ff; fhLfs; njhl;l td mYtyhpd; e/f/vz;/8644/99. 3/1/2000 kw;Wk; 18/01/2000 3/ V/Mh;/rz;Kf ehlh;. Ch;bkr;rpFsk; tprhuiz Mtz';fs; ehs; 26/01/2000/ ghh;it 1?y; fz;l g[fhh;kD rk;ge;jkhf g[fhh; kDjhiu. ghh;it 2y; fz;l Mizapd;go mg;ghy; ghh;it 3y; fz;l g[fhh; tprhuiz 26/01/2000 md;W nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ g[fhh; kDjhuhpd; thf;FK:yk;. g[fhh; cz;ikahf ,Uf;Fk; vd;w Iag;ghL Vw;gl;Ls;sjhy;. ePh; Fw;wkw;wthh; vd epUgzk; bra;a ckf;F xU tha;g;g[ mspj;J. ,e;j tprhuiz nehl;O!; tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ ePh; Fw;wkw;wth; vd fUJk;gl;rj;jpy; jFe;j Mjhu';fs; rhl;rpaj;Jld; ePh; rkaeyY}h; ngUuhl;rp Ma;t[ mYtyfj;jpy; 04/02/2000 fhiy 11/00 kzpastpy; vkJ tprhuizf;F M$uhf ntz;oaJ. M$uhf jtWk; gl;rj;jpy;. ck;nky; rhj;jg;gl;oUf;Fk; Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F ck;khy;. epU:gzk; bra;a Mjhuk; , yy;iybadf; fUjp. yprhuiz ,d;wp. kDjhuhpd; ghh;it 1y; fz;l tprhuiz Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; ,Wjp Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; vd;gij ,jd; K:yk; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/ tprhuizf;F kDjhh;. Ck;khy; FWf;F tprhuizf;F bra;a mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sPh; vd;gjhy; jFe;J M$uhfp Fw;wr;rhw;iw bgha;g;gpj;J bfhs;s re;jh;g;gk; mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/" 14. As per the notice, the enquiry was conducted and the statement of the complainant was recorded. The petitioner was directed to appear on 04.02.2000 to explain his version. The petitioner was not furnished with the complaint. The enquiry was conducted in his absence. The petitioner was not issued charge sheet and no explanation was called for and the enquiry was not conducted on 26.01.2000 in the presence of the petitioner. But the notice dated 27.01.2000 directed the petitioner to appear on 04.02.2000. Even, this is not stated in the dismissal order. Ultimately, the dismissal order was passed and the same was sent by the registered post. If the dismissal order was sent by the registered post, it is not known as to why the notice dated 27.01.2000 was also not sent by the registered post. Hence, the dismissal order making serious allegations against the petitioner was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent to hold the Departmental enquiry under the Rules by the competent authority and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with Rules, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ r n s To The Forest Range Officer, Social Forestry Range, Vadipatti +1cc to Mr.R.Singaravelan, Advocate Sr 70838 +1cc to Spl. Govt. Pleader Sr 70639 NSM(CO) km/11.10. W.P.No.43441 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/