Madras High Court
The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... vs S.Manikandan on 24 February, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.79 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.79 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)No.426 of 2025
1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Additional Chief Conservator of Forest,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Deputy Director/Wild Life Warden,
Tiger Project,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Forest Range Officer,
Tiger Project,
Mundanthurai Forest Office,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants
vs.
S.Manikandan ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A(MD)No.79 of 2025
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 01.08.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.11294 of
2021.
For Appellants : Mr.S.S.Madhavan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 01.08.2024
made in W.P(MD)No.11294 of 2021.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as
follows:
The respondent / writ petitioner was appointed as Anti
Poaching Watcher on 01.08.2005. After 15 years of service, he was
regularised on 25.02.2021, by the 1st appellant. However, immediately on
the next day of regularization, he was terminated from service by order
dated 26.02.2021, which was communicated to him on 03.05.2021.
Challenging the said order, the respondent filed writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.1. Before the Writ Court, the respondent contended that he had
rendered 15 years of unblemished service. However, without putting
him on notice and without serving him with relevant documents, the
termination order has been passed, that too was communicated after a
period of two months and therefore the said order is per se illegal.
2.2. The appellants filed counter in the writ petition, contending
that the appointment of the respondent in 2005 was purely on
temporary basis and he had indulged in illegal activities like, selling
liquor bottles and narcotics to the tourists and public. In this regard,
several complaints were received against him. Based on the same, a
departmental enquiry was conducted and he was discontinued from
service on 08.06.2020. Ultimately, by order dated 26.02.2021, the
respondent was terminated from service. Since the respondent refused
to receive the termination order, it was sent to him through registered
post on 28.04.2021.
2.3. The Writ Court finding that the respondent was terminated
immediately on the next day of regularisation, without initiating any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disciplinary action against him in accordance with law and without
affording any opportunity of hearing, dismissed the writ petition,
holding that the termination order is per se illegal. Aggrieved by the
said order, the department has filed this appeal.
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants would contend that the respondent had indulged in illegal
activities such as, selling liquor bottles and narcotics substances inside
the tiger reserve areas to the tourists and public, who visited the tiger
reserve and therefore, finding that his continuance in the Forest
Department will be detrimental to the department, the appellants
terminated him from service. The Writ Court without analysing the said
fact in proper perspective, has erroneously dismissed the writ petition.
Thus, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order passed by
the Writ Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would state that
absolutely no departmental action was initiated to prove the charges of
illegal activities alleged against the respondent and violating all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
principles of natural justice, termination order has been passed and
taking note of such violation, the Writ Court has rightly set aside the
termination order, which does not warrant interference at the hands of
this Court.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The appointment of the respondent as Anti Poaching
Watcher in the year 2005 on temporary basis is not disputed. On the
allegation of the illegal activities narrated supra, the respondent was
discontinued from service from 08.06.2020. However, it is not known as
to how the respondent's services were regularised subsequently on
25.02.2021, by the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
Even assuming that the respondent had indulged in illegal activities of
selling liquor bottles and narcotics substances inside the tiger reserve
areas to the tourists and public, who visited that place, the appellants
ought to have initiated departmental action in accordance with law, by
issuing charge memo framing charges, conducting enquiry, by giving
adequate opportunity to the respondent to rebut the allegations levelled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against him and then should have passed final orders. In this case, none
of the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules have been followed.
7. Though the appellants would contend that termination order
was passed pursuant to the departmental enquiry conducted,
absolutely no materials have been placed before this Court to buttress
the said contention. The appellants also would contend that the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
are not applicable to the respondent. Even assuming that the said
contention is accepted, law mandates 'Audi alteram partem' - It is the
principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in
which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence
against them. In this case, there is a conspicuous absence of the said
principle, by not following the principles of natural justice. Therefore,
the Writ Court holding that the termination order is per se illegal, has
quashed the same with a direction to reinstate the respondent.
Regarding the departmental action, the Writ Court has also remitted the
matter to the appellants for fresh consideration, after giving notice to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent along with all the documents pertaining to the disciplinary
proceedings. However, without deciding the matter afresh, the
appellants have come forward with this appeal which does not reflect
bona fide. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order
passed by the Writ Court.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
24.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Additional Chief Conservator of Forest,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
3.The Deputy Director/Wild Life Warden,
Tiger Project,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Forest Range Officer,
Tiger Project,
Mundanthurai Forest Office,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
