M. Balendran vs The Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Field Director

T. Raja, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/M. Balendran, challenging the correctness of the suspension order No. E/6285/2013, dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Filed Director, 1st respondent herein, on the ground that the first respondent by looking at a paper news wrongly came to an erroneous conclusion to place the petitioner under suspension, more particularly, when there is no specific complaint made against the petitioner. All the activities of the petitioner are with bona fide intention for the interest of the public. The respondents ought not to have viewed the same seriously.

It is further stated that after the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard on 05.05.1982, he was promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer. Thereafter, on 25.05.2013, he was transferred to Kalakkadu Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Ambasamudram Range as a Forest Range Officer. In the meanwhile, governing body of Tiger Conservation Foundation for Kalakkadu Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve approved the minutes meant for improvement works in Manimutharu Falls for preventing repeated accidents and to protect the Tourists, who are taking bath in Manimutharu Falls. The work comprises of sizzling of sharp and odd edges of rocks, drilling of rocks, laying of pipes and connecting the pipes by chain, laying of concrete floor on the rock etc. Having not been properly carried out by the private licenced Contractors, the improvement work was taken over by the Department and the same was entrusted to the petitioner. The petitioner also completed the work with all seriousness. It is only at this point of time, the petitioner was restrained by one press reporter from entering into the forest area on 05.10.2013, creating a false image. Taking note of the wrong news report, the suspension order has been wrongly passed. As there is no complaint whatsoever made against the petitioner by any one, learned counsel for the petitioner, pleaded, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

This Court while entertaining the writ petition, has passed an order, dated 11.10.2013, granting an order of stay of the operation of the suspension order. Subsequently, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has been allowed to work in the same place after the interim order of stay passed by this Court. Thereafter, a charge memo has been issued and the petitioner has not submitted his explanation. Since the charge memo has been issued and for which, the petitioner is due to submit his detailed explanation, this Court taking note of the fact that there has been no specific complaint against the petitioner by any one, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by confirming the order of stay passed by this Court on 11.10.2013, by giving a direction to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.