Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs State To Serve Fresh Charge Memo On Former Forest Range Officer For 'Wrongly' Recommending Shifting Of Sawmills

Observing that Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal ought not to have quashed the entire proceedings, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State to serve a fresh charge memo on B. M. Chanakya Raju, who was working as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) in Nellore District, for alleged violations of Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and government guidelines on relocation of saw mills.The division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao asked the authorities to bring the proceedings to a logical end within a period of six months.“We may not be understood as holding the respondent liable or guilty of any violation, but what we say is that, in view of the judgment in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra) on the point of environment and constitutional mandate, as also the duty of the citizen and in particular, the Officer incharge of the affairs, the matter cannot be left without due enquiry by the authorities,” said the bench.The court was hearing a plea filed by the State’s Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science & Technology challenging the order passed by the state Administrative Tribunal, setting aside the Charge Memo, letter and notice of 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively, issued against the officer in respect of his actions as Forest Range Officer. The case of the State was that, back in 2012, four saw mills were to be relocated in District Kurnool as per the recommendations of the Conservator of Forests. The applications filed by the owners for shifting of saw mills were forwarded to the Forest Range Officer, Kurnool for inspection. The Forest Range Officer submitted the inspection reports to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool, making recommendations for shifting of 4 saw mills to new locations, reporting that the distance of the new locations was outside 5 kms of the reserved forest, i.e., 5.1 km, 7.5 km, 5.48 km and 5.6 kms respectively. On such recommendations made to the Divisional Forest Officer, the saw mills were shifted to the new locations. Later on, as per the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool inspection and readings recorded and maps generated, the distances were found to be 4.6 km, 3.21 km, 3.31 km and 4.00 km respectively, which fell within the distance of 5.00 kms from the reserved forest boundary."Considering that such shifting within 5 km of the reserve forest boundary was contrary to Rule 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment Forests Science & Technology (FOR.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006, the charge memo dated 10.07.2013 was issued to the respondent after he was promoted to the post of Divisional Forest Officer," the court noted.The officer filed his written submissions and the Principal Chief Conservator of forests (HoFF), AP, Hyderabad being the Disciplinary Authority, conducted enquiry. The HoFF in the report said it is the primary duty of a forest ranger to submit correct factual information to his superior officer, which is a pre-requisite for shifting of Saw mills. And due to wrong factual information being submitted, irregular permissions shifting permissions within the 5km radius were granted, the Enquiry Officer said.The charged officer, challenged the charge and the enquiry before the Tribunal. The tribunal, while relying upon high court's decision Divisional Forest Officer Adilabad Dist. v. Sree Venkateswara Saw Mills (DB) held that the present was a case of shifting of existing saw mills within 5 kms and was not a case of setting up fresh saw mills within 5 kms from the reserved forest boundary, consequently, Rule 3 (2) of the Saw Mills Rules did not apply.The State challenged the ruling and argued that 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, dated 11.07.2006 clearly prohibited shifting of saw mill within such radius of 5 kms. The State also said that in the case of all the 4 saw mills, the distance of relocation reported was said to be beyond 5 kms, but actually it was found to be within 5 kms and therefore, the charge was rightly framed, as the officer misrepresented the distance.The court said neither Rule 3 (2) is attracted to the existing saw mills nor Rule 5 (4) read with the G.O.Ms.No.91, prohibits 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 is that no saw mill shall be shifted from outside 5 kms radius from the forest area to within 5 kms of the forest area," it added.However, the court said the moot point that requires consideration is, whether the existing saw mill was wihin 5 kms radius or it has been brought by relocation within 5 kms radius from outside 5 kms of the forest area."The charge as framed in the charge memo is silent on the distance of those four saw mills‟ original location, from where...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs State To Serve Fresh Charge Memo On Former Forest Range Officer For 'Wrongly' Recommending Shifting Of Sawmills

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags