Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a case wherein, the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of Constitution to challenge the judgment and order dated 15-02-2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), the Division Bench of Ravi Nath Tihari* and K. Manmadha Rao, JJ., quashed the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal and directed the State to take appropriate steps to serve charge memo, duly framing the charge, giving the complete particulars of the alleged violations of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11-07-2006.
Background
The respondent, while working as Forest Range Officer in Kurnool District, recommended for shifting of four saw mills within five kilometers radius of the nearest reserve forest boundary. reported that the distance of the new locations was outside 5 kms of the reserved forest. Later it was found that relocation was within the distance of 5 kms from the nearest reserved forest area.
On consideration, that such shifting was contrary to Rule 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (‘Saw Mills Rules’) and G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment Forests Science and Technology (FOR.III) Department (‘G.O.Ms.No.91’), dated 11-7-2006, the charge memo dated 10-07-2013 was issued to the respondent after he was promoted to the post of Divisional Forest Officer (‘DFO’).
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad being Disciplinary Authority, held the enquiry and the Conservator of Forests, Kurnool was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the DFO, Kurnool as the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with the charged Officer and submitted a report of the findings to the Disciplinary Authority.
Challenging the charge memo, the report of the Enquiry Officer and the notice to submit the defence statement, Respondent 1 filed an application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the said application and set aside all the impugned proceedings.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal to challenge the judgment and order of the Tribunal.
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal had legally erred in allowing the application and even if it was a case of shifting of existing saw mill but the new location being within 5 kms radius, the G.O.Ms.No.91, clearly prohibited shifting of saw mill within such radius of 5 kms. The petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the charge memo at the initial stage, particularly, when the enquiry had been conducted, enquiry report had been received against the respondent, holding the charge as proved, and against which report the respondent was granted opportunity to file defence statement.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Divisional Forest Officer Adilabad Dist. v. Sree Venkateswara Saw Mills, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 466 and opined that the rule making authority had specified that the bar contained in Rule 3(2) of Saw Mills Rules was applicable only to the setting up of fresh saw mills. The Court further opined that, neither Rule 3(2) was attracted to the existing saw mills nor Rule 5(4) read with the G.O.Ms.No.91, prohibited relocation of the existing saw mills within 5 kms radius of the forest area from their original location to a different location within the radius of 5 kms of the forest area. The prohibition under G.O.Ms.No.91 was that no saw mill should be shifted from outside 5 kms radius from the forest area to within 5 kms of the forest area.
On considering the issue that whether the existing saw mills were within 5 kms radius or it had been brought by relocation from outside 5 kms of the forest area, the Court noted that the original location from the forest area to be within or outside 5 kms was not reflected in the charge memo, the enquiry officer’s report, the recommendation report and the explanation to the charge memo of the respondent, which ought to have been clearly disclosed.
The Court relied on Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 and opined that quashing of the charge memo could not be in a routine manner and even if the charge was not very clear with respect to the shifting of the saw mills within 5 kms, as to whether from within 5 kms or from outside 5 kms, the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the entire proceedings, but ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioners to proceed from the stage of the service of the fresh charge memo.
The Court relied on T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 606 and opined that on the point of environment and constitutional mandate, and also the duty of the citizen and in particular, the Officer in charge of the affairs, the matter could not be left without due enquiry by the authorities.
Thereafter, the Court quashed the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal and directed the State to take appropriate steps to serve charge memo, duly framing the charge, giving the complete particulars of the alleged violations of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11-07-2006 and proceed, in accordance with law, against the respondent and bring the proceedings to a logical end within a period of six months.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
[State of Andhra Pradesh v. B.M. Chanakya Raju, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1480, decided on 25-07-2023]
*Judgment by – Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, GP for Services-I;
For the Respondent: G. Venkata Krishnaiah, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
