IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-01-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.40058 of 2006 N.Mahalingam .. Petitioner. Versus The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Chennai-600 015. .. Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the respondent in R.C.No.AB1/5218/06, dated 29.3.2006, and quash the same and direct the respondent to select the petitioner to the post of Forester from the panel of Forest Guards of the year 2004-2005, dated 9.5.2005 and promote as Forester w.e.f. 19.7.2005 and confer all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents: Mr.P.Sathish (Forests) Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had been appointed as a Forest Watcher, in the Forest Department, on 6.11.1976. Thereafter, he had been promoted as a Forest Guard, on 8.10.1989. The next higher cadre to which the petitioner was to be promoted was that of Forester, for which he was fully qualified. 3. It has been further stated that, while he was working as a Watcher, in Santhavasal Range, in Vellore Division, in the year, 1982, certain charges had been levelled against him stating that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratifications. Even though the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had advised the Government to drop the charges, as they had not been proved, the State Government had imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service, by a Government Order, in G.O.(3D) E&F Department, dated 19.7.2002. 4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had preferred an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5015 of 2002. By an order, dated 23.9.2002, the Tribunal had set aside the order of removal from service imposed on the petitioner and it had modified the punishment to one of stoppage of increment for three years, with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, on 8.8.2003. The petitioner had suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment, with effect from 19.7.2002. As such, the annual increments that were due to the petitioner, on 1.10.2002, 1.10.2003 and 1.10.2004, had been stopped. From 2.10.2004, the petitioner has not been suffering any punishment. Even if the currency of the punishment had been taken into account, from 19.7.2002, it should have been over by 18.7.2005. Even in the Government letter, dated 6.7.2001, the said position had been reiterated. Therefore, the petitioner had been entitled to be promoted as a Forester, either from 2.10.2004, or from 19.7.2005. 5. It has been further stated that the respondent had published a panel of Forest Guards, fit for promotion as Forester, for the year 2003-2004. The petitioner had not been included in the said panel for the reason that he was suffering a punishment. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an original application, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.1019 of 2004. The Tribunal by its order, dated 10.3.2004, had stated that the petitioner’s name should be considered for promotion, if he was otherwise eligible, after the currency of the punishment. Since, the currency of the punishment had already got over the petitioner ought to have been promoted as a Forester during the year 2004-2005. Since, the petitioner’s name had not been considered for promotion, as a Forester, during the year 2004-2005, he had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.40071 of 2005. 6. Based on the order passed by this Court, on 16.12.2005, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 29.3.2006, considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion, as a Forester and rejecting the same. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent denying the averments made by the petitioner. It has been stated that in complying with the orders of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.9.2002, made in O.A.Nos.5015 and 5041 of 2002, the petitioner, who had been removed from service, was reinstated in service, on 8.8.2003, with the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years, with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of increment had been given effect to, from 8.8.2003 and not from 19.7.2002, as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. It has been further stated that the order passed by the Tribunal had been delivered only on 23.9.2002, and the petitioner had been reinstated in service, on 8.8.2003. The punishment of stoppage of increment, imposed on the petitioner, would end on 7.8.2006 and only thereafter, the petitioner could be considered for promotion, subject to the other proceedings pending, with regard to the said matter. 9. It had also been stated that the name of the petitioner, who had been appointed as a Forest guard, on 8.10.1989, had not been included in the panel for the year 2005-2006, as only the names of the Forest Guards, who had been appointed upto 21.8.1989, had been included in the panel of the year 2005-2006. Further, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was in currency, on the crucial date, which is 15.8.2004. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner had been modified to that of stoppage of increment for three years, with cumulative effect. Accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years, imposed on the petitioner, had been given effect to. However, the said punishment imposed on the petitioner ought to have ended in the year 2005, as stated in the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.9.2002, made in O.A.Nos.5015 and 5041 of 2002. As such, the petitioner was fully qualified to be considered for promotion as a Forester in the year, 2005, itself. Accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been promoted as a Forester, if he has been otherwise qualified for such promotion, from the year 2005 itself. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order of the respondent denying the promotion that was due to the petitioner, from the year 2005, by way of the impugned order, dated 29.3.2006, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 29.3.2006, is set aside and the respondent is directed to grant notional promotion to the petitioner, as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Forester, from the relevant date of the year 2005, if he was otherwise eligible for such promotion and grant him the monetary and other benefits that would have accrued to the petitioner on such promotion being granted to him. 11. The respondent is directed to implement the above directions, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed, as stated above. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Chennai-600 015. 1 CC to the Spl. Government Pleader(Forests) SR NO 1380 1 cc To Mr.M.Hidayathulla, Advocate, SR.1141 W.P.No.40058 of 2006 KJ(CO) sra 27.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/