IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7761 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: M.A. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O. ANANDAN PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, FORESTER,MUNNAR RANGE OFFICE, MUNNAR FOREST DIVISION, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 3. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HIGH RANGE CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7761 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Forester presently working at range office, Munnar. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated in Ext.P7 order dated 20.08.2007. As per Ext.P7 it was ordered to realise an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the petitioner towards the loss sustained by the state and also to treat the period of his suspension as eligible leave. Ext.P7 order was confirmed by the 3rd respondent in and vide Ext.P8. He took up the matter before the 2nd respondent through Ext.P9. Despite repeated reminders no action was taken thereon. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 appeal before the first respondent on 8.6.2009. On Ext. P10 also no action was taken. It is with these averments that this writ petition has been fled. 2. When an appeal is filed before a competent WPC.7761/10 2 authority in respect of a subject matter that falls within its jurisdiction the said authority is bound to consider and pass orders thereon. It is the contention of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority had passed Ext.P7 without conducting any enquiry as such. In the above circumstances the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P10 and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity of being heard. Considering the fact that Ext.P7 order was passed without conducting an enquiry, I think the prayer for affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner is reasonable. Therefore, the first respondent shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on Ext.P10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. SOU.