IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24..3..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. No. 7888 of 2002 S. Paramananthan ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Forests Department Fort St. George Chennai 9 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Panagal Buildings Saidapet Chennai 15 3. The District Forests Officer Cuddalore District Villupuram 4. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai 104 ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the Tribunal dated 04.9.2001 made in O.A. No. 9752 of 1997 confirming the order of the first respondent in proceedings G.O. (3D) No. 67 dated 20.8.1997 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Forest Ranger Officer in Tamil Nadu Forest Department with all attendant benefits both service and monetary. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Venkataramani, SC for Mr. J. Pothiraj For Respondents 1-3 : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GP Assisted by Mr. K. Rajasekar, GA (Forests) ORDER
K. CHANDRU, J.
Heard the arguments of Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. J. Pothiraj appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader assisted by Mr. K. Rajasekar, learned Government Advocate (Forests) representing the respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the records.
2. The petitioner was working as a Forest Ranger. In the Original Application (O.A. No.9752 of 1997) filed by him, he sought to challenge the order of his removal made by the Government vide G.O. (3D) No. 67 Environmental and Forest Department dated 20.8.1997. The petitioner was charge-sheeted along with other subordinates and the matter was sent for an enquiry by the disciplinary Tribunal in D.E. Nos. 223 of 1985, 224 of 1985 and 225 of 1985. The charge against the petitioner before the Disciplinary Tribunal was the demand and acceptance of bribe as well as creating false records.
3. The Tribunal framed charges against the petitioner and finally, found him guilty of the charges in D.E. No. 225 of 1985. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner asking for his explanation. The petitioner contended that there were contradictions in the evidence recorded by the Tribunal and there was no eye-witness who had spoken about the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The matter was sent by the second respondent for passing appropriate orders by the first respondent Government. The Government held that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and the finding of the Disciplinary Tribunal was acceptable.
4. Thereafter, the matter was referred to ascertain the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [for short, ‘TNPSC’] under Regulation 18(1)(b) of the TNPSC Regulations. Though initially, the TNPSC was of the view that the charges were not proved, the Government, once again, examined the entire case along with the view expressed by the TNPSC. It was found out by the Government that the charges made against the petitioner were held to be proved. The entire proceedings were, once again, furnished to the TNPSC and the TNPSC was asked to reconsider its view. The TNPSC subsequently, informed by a letter dated 31.8.1995 that though there were minor contradictions in the deposition made by witnesses, it was of the opinion that the illegal gratification taken by the petitioner was clearly proved and the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. It found that it was clear that when the petitioner was working as a Forest Range Officer in the Santhavasal Range, he and his subordinates were in the habit of fabricating cases against the illiterate villagers and for having abused their official position and authority, they should be severely dealt with.
5. Thereafter, the Government independently examined the case and found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and accordingly, removed him from service. Though the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Government by his petition dated 09.10.1997, he also filed simultaneously, the Original Application before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal, on an analysis of all the evidence, took up O.A. No. 9752 of 1997 filed by the petitioner along with the other Original Applications filed by his subordinate officials and passed a common order dated 04.9.2001. While the Tribunal gave relief in respect of the other employees and modified the punishment of removal as one of compulsory retirement, but in the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal held in paragraph 23 of the order which is as follows:
Para 23: “The applicant in O.A. No. 9752/97 is Thiru. S.Paramanathan the then Range Officer, Santhavasal. He is the person who has demanded and accepted the bribe and in view of the findings referred to above it has been clearly established that he is guilty of receiving illegal gratification and therefore, the order of removal made by the Department is only in proportion to the proved charges….”
After stating so, the Tribunal rejected the O.A.
7. However, the State had not preferred writ petitions against that portion of the order of the Tribunal ordering modification of the punishments imposed on the other officials, who were charge-sheeted along with the petitioner. The petitioner has now come forward to file the present writ petition against the denial of relief.
8. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner once again tried to take this Court into the volume of evidence placed before the Disciplinary Tribunal and tried to contend that this was a case of no evidence. In this context, he placed before this Court the deposition of one Munusamy, S/o Kariyan, (examined as P.W.11) and tried to take advantage of a stray sentence from that deposition for the purpose of showing that the said witness had not personally seen as to how much money was received by the petitioner. However, we are not persuaded to reappreciate the evidence all over again.
9. In the present case, the Disciplinary Tribunal had given a categorical finding about the guilt of the petitioner. The TNPSC in its revised opinion also concurred with the finding rendered by the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Government had also come to the same conclusion on an independent appraisal of the materials placed before it. The Tribunal while dealing with the case of the petitioner along with five other employees in a threadbare analysis of the evidence, also found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Even the deposition of P.W.11 Munusamy on which heavy reliance was placed by the petitioner if read as a whole, clearly showed that the petitioner was guilty of not only receiving illegal gratification but also capable of filing false cases against poor innocent tribals who were eking out living on the basis of forest produce like in the present case, bamboos with which they were making small baskets and selling it in Rural Towns. We are not persuaded to interfere either with the finding of the Tribunal or the proportionality of punishment imposed on the petitioner.
10. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel contended that there was no scope for the TNPSC to give a second opinion. If this position is accepted, then according to the first opinion dated 27.12.1993, the petitioner was found innocent and in terms of the constitutional provisions under Article 320(3), the first respondent State is bound to give effect to the said opinion. We do not think that an advisory body like the TNPSC cannot change its view upon the State Government providing the material for coming to such conclusion. Even otherwise, the opinion of the TNPSC, whether for or against the petitioner, is not binding upon the State and the State can come to its own conclusion based on the available records and if necessary, can take a contrary view to that of the opinion rendered by the TNPSC.
11. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the earliest decision of the Supreme Court in interpreting the scope of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution. In A.N. DSilva v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 1130), the Supreme Court had expressed the view that the Commissions function is purely advisory. It is not an appellate authority over the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. The advice tendered by the Commission is not binding on the government.
12. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(P.K.M., J.) (K.C., J.)
24..3..2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
gri
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Forests Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Panagal Buildings
Saidapet
Chennai 15
3. The District Forests Officer
Cuddalore District
Villupuram
P.K. MISRA, J.
and
K. CHANDRU, J.
gri
Pre-Delivery Order in
W. P. No. 7888 of 2002
Delivered on
24..3..2008