IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2007 / 27TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 15673 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.V.VARGHESE, FORESTER (UNDER SUSPENSION), KODANAD HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, MALAYATTOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, MALAYATTOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.15673/2007 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-5539/2007 DTD. 23/03/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REPORT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO.C3-6872/2006 DTD. 12/2/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 27/03/2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/03/2007 IN WPC.NO.10363/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16/04/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-5539/2007 DTD. 5/05/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15673 of 2007-N ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2007. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Forester, working under the respondents. He was placed under suspension, under Ext.P1 order. The allegation against him is concerning grant of NOC to saw mills in Malayatoor Forest Division, against the norms prescribed. Going by the report of the Empowered Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the competent authority to grant NOC is the Divisional Forest Officer. The application forwarded by the said officer was enquired into by the Forest Range Officer. He submitted a report. Based on that report, the Divisional Forest Officer granted Ext.P3 NOC. The petitioner submits, he has no role, whatsoever, in submitting the report. As the Forester in the area, he accompanied the Forest Range Officer and rendered all assistance in holding the enquiry. According to him, the same cannot be treated as a misconduct. So, he preferred Ext.P4 seeking to review the suspension order, before the second respondent. This Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed the consideration of that representation. In obedience to that direction, Ext.P7 has been passed. As per Ext.P7 it is ordered that until the personal liability of various officers, in the matter of grant of NOC to saw mills in violation of the directions of the Central Empowered Committee is ascertained, the petitioner cannot be reinstated. WPC No.15673 of 2007 2 This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1 and P7. The petitioner reiterated the contentions he raised in Ext.P4, against Ext.P1. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Based on the files leading to the impugned orders, he submitted that the petitioner was totally associated with the Forest Range Officer who was instrumental in submitting wrong reports, which resulted in granting the NOC illegally, to several saw mills. The files contained 3 reports, all implicating the petitioner, it is submitted. The material against the petitioner is that he has accompanied the Forest Range Officer and was associated with him in all his activities. 3. If a wrong report is submitted on an application for NOC, the Forest Range Officer is responsible for it. The petitioner, who is a Forester is bound to render all assistance to the Forest Range Officer, in holding the enquiry into the matter. This does not mean that he should render assistance in illegal activities indulged by the Forest Range Officer. The learned Government Pleader would submit that as per the statement of the mill owners, the petitioner was present along with 3rd party when illegal ratification was granted. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that the petitioner would have reported about the acceptance of the illegal ratification to the superior officers, if he was innocent in the matter. 4. The petitioner is due to retire from service on 31-10-2007. Therefore, the extent of involvement of the petitioner has to be ascertained WPC No.15673 of 2007 3 at the earliest in the alleged irregularities as stated in Ext.P7 order and thereafter, the petitioner's claim for reinstatement should be considered. The petitioner has also submitted that if he is reinstated, he is ready to go on leave immediately, till his retirement. 5. The second respondent is directed to complete the proceedings in connection with fixing the responsibility of the persons involved, as stated in Ext.P7, within two months from today. If the petitioner is not found responsible, he shall be reinstated immediately thereafter. If the involvement of the petitioner is found, the second respondent shall consider whether the petitioner could be reinstated in service, subject to his undertaking that he will go on leave immediately till his retirement. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. MS