• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

Our Legal Correspondent

`Interference at stage of enquiry not possible'

Chennai May 2 A writ petition filed by a forester at Manoumboly Range challenging a charge memo issued on August 5, 2006 by Wild Life Warden, Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Pollachi, alleging inaction by him when large number of trees were felled in the name of pruning them, was dismissed by the Madras High Court holding that interference at stage of enquiry was not possible.

The Court could not go into defence put up by the petitioner and convert it into a domestic enquiry forum, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled. The Court was unable to countenance attack made by petitioner, Mr A. Moorthy, and it was for him to prove his innocence in the enquiry to be held against him.

The Wild Life Warden charged the forester with not adhering to guidelines issued in respect of private forests. The impugned order was a charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of TN Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner were grave in nature, the memo alleged.

The petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against him were baseless. In respect of a private forest, no responsibility lay with the petitioner and if at all, it was the responsibility of forest committee, and the petitioner was not a member of that committee. A forester, according to various communications of department, could not be responsible for tree felling in a private forest.

Citing a decision of Supreme Court [1987 (2) SCC 179 (State of UP v. Brahma Datt Sharma)] that the High Court was not justified in quashing show cause notice, the Judge said that the apex court in another case [1996 (3) SCC 157 (Secretary to Govt, Prohibition & Excise v. L. Srinivasan)] had pulled up a member of Administrative Tribunal for having interfered with charge memo as if Tribunal was an appellate authority.

The writ petition was clearly misconceived and there were no grounds warranting interference of charge memo at this stage. Hence, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Environment | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Andhra Bank raises NRE rates

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line