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 the relocation was to be made, i.e., their original place of existence within 5 kms radius or beyond that. If those saw mills were already existing within 5 kms and shifting was made, actually within 5 kms, as is the case of the petitioners, though pursuant to the recommendation showing different distance outside 5 kms, there would be no violation of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006. But, if the relocation was got done actually within 5 kms, from a location outside 5 kms, showing incorrectly the new location to be outside 5 kms, the petitioners could proceed departmentally in view of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006," said the bench.

The government counsel told the court that there is nothing on record of the writ petition to point out such distance, but it is there that the saw mills were relocated/shifted within 5 kms of the forest area. 

The court said: "In the present case, as observed above, there is nothing to indicate that those four saw mills were already situated within the radius of 5 kms of the forest area. The very first opportunity to the respondent was to say so that it was existing within 5 kms, in his report/recommendation, but there is no mention of distance except the location place. Even in reply to the charge memo, there is no such reply. For the first time, this plea was taken in the explanation to the Enquiry Officer‟s report and then in the counter affidavit. In view of what we have stated above, the stand taken by the respondent at such a later point of time, may be after thought and cannot be considered by us, being a question of fact, which cannot be determined at this stage in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, so as to apply M/s. Sri Srinivasa Wood Works (supra) to the facts of the present case, and in the circumstances mentioned above."

However, the court, while relying on N.Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, said it was the duty of the respondent being the citizen and also importantly the Forest Range Officer at the relevant point of time, to ensure that the shifting of the saw mills within 5 kms of the forest area was not contrary to G.O.Ms.No.91.

"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," it added.

While allowing the State's plea, the court said: “The impugned judgment & order of the Tribunal is quashed, with the direction to the petitioners 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 25 11.07.2006 and proceed, in accordance with law, against the respondent and bring the proceedings to a logical end within a period of 6 (six) months.”

Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. B. M. Chanakya Raju

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, GP for Services-I

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G. Venkata Krishnaiah

Click Here To Read/Download Order