SE: HGiWTiE SHE ‘DHIREN’Em MISHRAJ Smt. Ram Kochar, counsei for the petitioner. Sun Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heani. Tbs petitioner has flied tho instant petition for foliowing mliefs :— 10. I) That this Hon’bie’ Court mav kindlv be pleased to ' quash the Lmpugned order dated 29.5 1985 Annexm‘e 2) That this Honrble Court may kimily be pleased to command the respondent No.4 to Writ ?etition under Art cie 226 of the Constitution of india P-l issued by the respomient No.4; a» release the arrears g, V #7 7, i i Win (Si i0. 642212008 FETiTiOKER Kanhaiva Lai Thakur, Sio Shn' Late Rama Thakur, aged about 50 years, 0ccupation— Service forester, Suh Forest Ranger, South Kondagaen, resident of Kendagaon, District Bastar {CG} ' Versus RESPOI‘'IBEW’T‘S 1. The State of Chhattisgarh; through the Secretary, Depertmeht of Forest, Manuelaya- D.K.S. Bhawan, Rajpur (CG) 2. The C‘ief Conselvator of Forest, Chhatn‘sgarh, Raipur(CG) 3. The Co servator of Forest, Kzmker Circle, Kaaker (CG) 4. The D‘ isionai Forest Officer, Production Forest Divisio , Kanker (CG) 5. The D puty Divisionai Forest Officer, Keshkal (Produ tion}/ Innuiry 0&cer 1985 imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cu ulative effect for alieged miSconduct by the petitioner. The above ord was passed without conducting any enquiry and without anbrdin any opportunity of hearing to the petition€n The petitioner pref of withholding of two incrammlts from the dam of passing of the impugned order Annexure P-l with 18% interest 0&1” almum. Gn‘evanco of the petition is that the respondent No.4 vide order of anoexure P-l dated 29th appeal against the imposition of the above penaity which was di sed by the respondent No.3 after 16 years of mljng the appeal vide rder dated 19.4.2001 of Annexure P-6 However, allowing the repxese tation of the petitioner vide order of Annexure P-8 dated 25.5.2001 the respondent No.3/ Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle set asid the order of punishment and further directed to enquire the matter fter issuing Show cause notice to the petitioner. However, even after penalty imposed upon the petitioner has been set aside, neither an. show-cause notice as contemplated in the order of Annexure P—8 has ’ een issued to the petitioner nor he has been paid two annual increme Learned counsel for the p titioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to make fresh repre ‘ ntat'ion before the respondent No.4 for 1edressal of his grievances and n such representation being made, the respondent No.4 be directed decide the same Within a specified period. i9 i,,, _ \v t \ e e ‘ J e e~ s ‘s d a e n Lealned counsel forthe State submits that in case the petitioner flies fresh representation before the respondent No.4 for rodrosml of his grievances Within a week fmm today'along with copy of th1s order, the samevsh'all be considered anti decided by the respondent No.4 Within a further period of 6 weeks from the date of leceipt of representation. in View of the above sub ssion of leained counsel for the parties, U1e instant petition is dispose of with liberty to the petitioner to hie fresh representation before the respondent No.4 for re'c‘lressal of his grievances within a week from today aiong with copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondent No.4 shall decide the same within a further period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra Judge ‘ W t