R.M. Thangavelu vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This writ petition is filed praying to set aside the Proceedings dated 10.12.2010 declaring to the extent that the petitioner has not selected for his empanelment for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 2010-2011 and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to empanel the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 2010-2011 and to promote him as Forest Ranger with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits. Pending writ petition, petitioner R.M. Thangavelu died and his wife viz., Santhalakshmi was substituted as 2nd petitioner in the writ petition.

The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:-

The deceased petitioner '' R.M. Thangavelu was initially appointed as Forest Guard in July, 1982 and was promoted as Forester on 12.2.1998 and was eligible for further promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. The 1st respondent has called for particulars of the eligible Foresters to prepare the panel for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 2010-2011 and the deceased petitioner reliably learn that the 2nd respondent has recommended for inclusion of his name in the said panel. On 07.4.2010, the District Forest Officer, Chengalpattu Division, Kancheepuram has issued a show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the deceased petitioner alleging that 2008 Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project Scheme'' had been executed in the very same place wherein TAP-Phase I was raised and implemented by the social Forestry Division, Chengalpattu, for the years 1997-1998, 1999-2000 and 2007-2008 and this has resulted in overlapping as found by the District Forest Officer, Thiruvallur, who headed 100% monitoring committee during his inspection, vide his report Na.Ka.No.8157/08/va dated 12.9.2009. The deceased petitioner was on the verge of being empanelled and promoted as Forest Ranger, the 3rd respondent has passed an order on 20.9.2010, imposing punishment of Censure on the deceased petitioner for the charge memo issued under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Grievance of the petitioners is that charges levelled against the deceased petitioner were totally unrelated. The deceased petitioner had filed W.P. No.23923 of 2010, challenging the order of Censure and also seeking direction to include his name in the ensuing panel of Forester fit for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 2010-2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 25.10.2010, holding that the deceased petitioner has not exhausted the alternative appeal remedy, which was provided under the Statute. Thereafter, the deceased petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the Conservator of Forest, Chennai Circle and also preferred writ appeal in W.A. No.2433 of 2010. By order dated 19.11.2010, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the above said writ appeal by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal preferred, before finalisation of the panel for the year 2010-2011. While so, the respondents failed to consider the name of the deceased petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger, which has caused not only prejudice to the deceased petitioner, but also against the findings given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2433 of 2010, dated 19.11.2010. According to the petitioners, though in the impugned panel, the name of deceased petitioner was found place at Serial No. 227, he had been declared as not selected, however, his juniors were declared as selected for empanelment and promotion as Forest Ranger for the year 2010-2011. Hence, the deceased petitioner had filed this writ petition with the above said prayer.

The 1st respondent has filed the counter-affidavit stating that the punishment of Censure was in currency on the date of consideration of the panel for the year 2010-2011 (Crucial date 15.8.2010) and therefore, the deceased petitioner was not selected for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger. According to the 1st respondent the name of the deceased petitioner was not considered primarily on two reasons, that he had not passed one of the pre-requisite qualification of passing departmental test viz., the Office Procedure and Accounts followed by the reason that the currency of punishment on the date of consideration of his name for the selection to the post of Forest Ranger. Therefore, the deceased petitioner is not entitled to be empanelled in the panel for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger for the year 2010-2011 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the submissions of Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that proceeding was initiated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and final order was passed imposing punishment of ''Censure'' on 20.9.2010 and the crucial date for the above said panel for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger was on 15.8.2010. Though punishment was imposed before implementing the panel on 10.12.2010, one year check period/debarment has not been expired. Hence, the deceased petitioner cannot claim that he should be promoted as per panel without reference to the Censure order, particularly, when the Rule is amended retrospectively in G.O. Ms.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.02.2014. Thus, no case is made out to allow the writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the amended Rule is struck down insofar as giving retrospective effect is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to revive the request for claiming monitory benefits/notional promotion. No cost. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.