1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD) No.1094 of 2011 K.Paulpandian S/o.Karuppasamy, B-29 Housing Board quarters, Sethupathi Nagar, Ramnad. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary Environment & Forest Department St. fort George, Chennai. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Kolappakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 03.01.2011 within a time frame. For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Nisha Banu For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader ORDER By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard Mrs.J.Nisha Banu, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a limited relief of directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner dated 03.01.2011. 4. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a Forester in the Forest Department in the year 1982. While he was working at Theni Division from 1992 to 2002, a person by name T.Palpandi, with the name of the petitioner, was working as a Forest Watcher. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Uthamapalayam forest Range to Varasanadu soil preservation division on 12.06.2002 and thereafter to Ramanathapuram Division and subsequently to forest extension on 03.07.2005. While so, a charge memo was issued to him on 09.01.2008. It is his case that he has nothing to do with the allegations contained in the charge memo and there is no specific allegations against him. On verification, the petitioner came to understand that the respondents have confused the names of the petitioner to that of one Forest Watcher. Therefore, the petitioner gave an explanation with all the relevant documents to show that he was not the said person, whom the respondents referred to in the charge memo. However, the charge memo was issued at the verge of promotion in the year 2007 and his promotion has been passed over for nearly three occasions, which is against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the Government letter No.248 dated 20.10.1997. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal Pending consideration of the appeal, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for the relief stated earlier. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents at the outset submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal only on 03.01.2011 and within a short time, the petitioner has rushed to this Court Therefore, he submits that a reasonable time may be granted to the respondents to consider the appeal, since the Government has to take the appeal after receiving the necessary documents from the concerned authorities. 6. Considering the circumstances and in view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal, without adverting into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, dated 03.01.2011, in accordance with law and on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment & Forest Department St. fort George,Chennai. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Kolappakkam, Chennai. +1cc The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.9945 W.P.(MD)No.1094 of 2011 23.02.2011 RR PA/29.03.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/