Mu. Mutheiah vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and The Conservator of Forests

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner worked as Forest Ranger at Tiruchuzhi Social Forest Range from 10.06.2005 to 27.11.2006.

During his tenure, the works under the scheme of Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project for the year 2005 -2006 was carried out by him. Under the

said scheme, 27500 seedlings, with an extent of 125 Hectares were planted. The audit team audited during the period between 06.12.2006 and

10.12.2006. The audit team found that as per records 27500 seedlings were planted and there was short fall of 10680 seedlings. They estimated

the loss due to the short fall at Rs. 2,28,616/-.

Based on the said audit report, the Petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 27.08.2007 under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.10.2007. He explained that he joined as a Forest Ranger in

Tiruchuzhi Forest Range only on 10.06.2005. The area of planting the seedlings was identified by his predecessor. There was no demarcation of

forest land. There was no boundary stones. He planted the seedlings in the area chosen by his predecessor. The Divisional Forest Officer and the

Conservator of Forests visited the project so many times and they did not find fault with his work. The Petitioner also pointed out that he wrote a

letter dated 14.09.2006 to the Divisional Forest Officer about the plants were being destroyed by the revenue officials, when they acquired certain

areas for distributing lands under the Government Scheme of providing 2 acres to the land less poor. He also stated that the Divisional Forest

Officer wrote a letter dated 17.11.2006 to the wildlife warden, Srivilliputhur, endorsing the points raised by the Petitioner. He stated that he could

not be held responsible for the loss caused by the revenue officials due to their acquiring of the lands by ploughing the area and destroying the

plants. He also pointed out the letter written by the Divisional Forest Officer dated 21.12.2006 to the District Collector that the plants were

destroyed in 24 Hectares by the revenue officials.

However, the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2007 holding that the Petitioner is responsible for the loss of 10680

seedlings to the value of Rs. 2,28,616/-. The 2nd Respondent directed him to pay the same in instalments.

The Petitioner filed an appeal to the 1st Respondent. The appeal was rejected by the 1st Respondent in the impugned order dated 11.04.2008.

The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders dated 31.10.2007 and 10.09.2008 passed by the 2nd Respondent

and 1st Respondent respectively.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the Respondents.

6.I have considered the submissions made on either side.

The charge memo dated 27.08.2007 has contained 7 charges. However the crux of the charge is that the Petitioner is responsible for the loss of

10680 seedlings, that was planted in the Tiruchuzhi Forest Range and the value of the same was at Rs. 2,28,616/-.

According to the Petitioner, he could not be held responsible for the loss of 10680 seedlings as the same was destroyed by the revenue officials.

It is not in dispute that the revenue officials destroyed the seedlings. The Petitioner stated that he brought to the notice of the Divisional Forest

Officer and the Conservator of Forests immediately after the seedlings were destroyed by the revenue officials. The District Forest Officer had

written a letter to the higher officials about the same and those letters are enclosed in the typed set of papers. In the letter dated 17.11.2006, the

Divisional Forest Officer informed the wildlife Warden, Srivilliputhur that the revenue officials destroyed the plants for the purpose of distribution to

the land less poor under the Government Scheme of providing 2 acres to the land less poor. He pointed out that there was no boundary stones and

there was no demarcation of reserve forest. The Divisional Forest Officer also wrote a letter on 21.12.2006 to the District Collector. On such

intervention, further damage to the plants were stopped. The audit party conducted audit during December 2006, after the revenue officials

destroyed the plants. It is also admitted that the land was identified by his predecessor for planting the seedlings. However the authorities found

that the Petitioner is responsible for the loss of 10680 seedlings and has sought to recover Rs. 2,28,616/.

In my view, the reasoning of the Respondents holding the Petitioners as responsible for the loss of 10680 seedlings is totally perverse and he

could not be held responsible for the destruction made by the revenue officials.

The appellate authority states that there was no evidence that the Divisional Forest Officer inspected the project many times. On the other

hand, the Divisional Forest Officer himself wrote letters at 17.11.2006 and 21.12.2006, in support of the Petitioner.

In the said circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The Petitioner has stated that certain recoveries were made pursuant to the impugned orders. Since the impugned orders are quashed, the

Respondents are directed to repay the amount which was recovered from the Petitioner.