K MANI Vs. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner joined the service in the Respondent department as Forest Watcher on 31.01.1975. He was promoted in the year 1992 as Forester. He was retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.03.2009. He served as a Forester in Konalar Section in Berijam Range in Kodaikanal Forest Division between 09.06.1999 and 31.08.2000.

(2.) While so, three years after the Petitioner left the Konalar Section, a charge memo dated 12.06.2003 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules alleging that the Petitioner failed to maintain Sighai woods and thereby, caused loss to the department. Apart from the Petitioner six others i.e. one Ranger, one Forester and four Forest Guards were issued with similar charge sheet alleging that they failed to maintain Sighai woods and caused loss to the department. However, by an order, dated 21.01.2005 the Respondent dropped the charges.

(3.) After dropping the charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, a fresh charge memo, dated 18.02.2005 was issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules alleging that an inspection was done by the Assistant Conservator of Forest and based on the report dated 06.01.2003 of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, it is seen that there was a shortage of Sighai woods to the tune of Rs. 15,26,600/-. It is stated that the Petitioner's share towards the loss is Rs. 3,78,611/-. The Petitioner was directed to show cause why action should not be taken for the afore-said loss. The Petitioner gave representations dated 12.04.2005 and 21.11.2005 requesting the Respondent to furnish him certain documents so as to submit his explanation. Without furnishing those documents, the Respondent passed the impugned order, dated 28.02.2006 alleging that the Petitioner was responsible for the loss of Sighai woods as per the reports dated 06.01.2003 and 22.06.2004 of the Assistant Conservator of Forest of the Kodaikanal Division and the total loss was to the tune of Rs. 15,26,600/-and the share of the Petitioner was Rs. 3,78,611/-. The Petitioner was responsible for the loss and he was ordered to remit Rs. 3,78,611/-in 36 installments. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition, to quash the afore-said recovery order.