- (1.)THE petitioner, who joined the service in Forest Department as Forest Guard, was subsequently promoted as a Forester on 8.7.1999. While working in the Polur Forest Range, Gangavaram Section, he was placed under suspension along with other subordinate staff working under him, namely M.Palanivelu (Forest Ranger), J.Rajan (Forest Guard) and K.Muniswamy (Forest Watcher), on the charge that they have not prevented the laying of road in Paravadhamalai Reserve Forest, by which illicit blasting of stones has taken place, resulting in neglect of protecting the forest area.
(2.)A charge memo was issued against the petitioner and others, except Forest Guard, on 18.11.2003 and in respect of the Forest Guard, the charge memo was issued on 1.12.2003, all under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the charges were framed by the District Forest Officer, Tiruvannamalai on two grounds, viz., (i) the failure to prevent laying of road to the extent of 1900 Meters in the width of 7 to 10 Meters in the Paravadhamalai Forest Range from Pachayamman Temple to Veerabadrasamy Temple; and (ii) the failure to prevent blasting of stones effected in an area of one acre in Paravadhamalai forest range resulting in breaking of 13000 stones, which is a breach of the provisions of the Forest Act, 1980.
The petitioner and others, viz., M.Palanivelu (Forest Ranger), J.Rajan (Forest Guard) and K.Muniswamy (Forest Watcher) submitted their explanation and the second respondent has appointed an Enquiry Officer on 24.12.2003. The Enquiry Officer conducted a common enquiry on all the four persons and found that the charges were proved in his report dated 28.7.2004 and copy of the report was served on the petitioner on 31.7.2004, for which the petitioner has given his further explanation on 28.8.2004. In spite of the said explanation, the second respondent has imposed a major punishment on the petitioner of reduction of pay to bottom scale of Forester for a period of five years with cumulative effect. It was aggrieved against the said order of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent, who, in the impugned order dated 10.6.2005, has confirmed the decision of the second respondent.

The impugned orders are challenged mainly on the ground that when a common enquiry was conducted in respect of the four officials, three among them being subordinates to the petitioner, the subordinate officials were inflicted lesser punishment, while the petitioner has been imposed with major punishment, as stated above. That apart, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the first respondent/Appellate Authority on the ground that the first respondent has not applied his mind, especially when the petitioner has raised more than ten points in the grounds of appeal against the original order of punishment passed by the second respondent.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while a common enquiry was conducted and a common order was passed, while imposing punishment there has been discrimination shown and that discrimination itself is sufficient for this Court to interfere, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director General of Police and others v. G.Dasayan, [1998] 2 SCC 407. He would also submit that the first respondent/Appellate Authority has not traversed the various points raised by the petitioner and therefore, it should treated as one passed with total non application of mind.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Forest) would submit that the first respondent/Appellate Authority has applied its mind, which is evidenced by the very fact that the first respondent/Appellate Authority has given a crisp reason and therefore, it is not for this Court to interfere with the same. As far as the nature of punishment inflicted on four persons against whom common enquiry was conducted, it is his submission that the petitioner being a superior officer among all the four has got more responsibility and a different punishment has been imposed, which cannot be said to be a discrimination.