JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 18.8.2007 in Se. Mu.Na.Ka.No.7700/06.S and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.1.2008 in Se.Mu.A.No.12604/2007, P.3 and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 7.11.2008 in Se.Mu.A.No.AA.2/33260/08, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the current panel fit for promotion to the post of Forester. 2. On 23.7.2007 a charge memo under Rule 17A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was served on the petitioner stating that on 29.7.2006 from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am on 30.7.2006, the petitioner was given the duty of protecting sapwood and sandalwood Trees. He was put on duty near the gate of District Forest Officer Bungalow. After completion of duty, it was found that a tree, which was situated 40 meter from the Bungalow of the District Forest Officer was cut away and for dereliction of duty as above, the above said charge memo was issued. The petitioner gave his explanation on 7.8.2007. The District Forest Officer passed an order on 18.8.2007 after considering the charge memo, explanation and the statement given by other forest guards, who stated that the petitioner was sleeping during the duty hours. He came to the conclusion that the charge was proved and imposed the punishment postponing the next increment for six months without cumulative effect excluding the period spent on leave. It is stated that this order is passed considering that it will not affect the petitioners pension benefits. 3. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who rejected the appeal by concurring with the finding of the District Forest Officer and came to the conclusion that the charge of dereliction of duty resulting in loss of sandalwood was proved by the evidence of other forest guards and that the incident happened at the time when the petitioner was on duty. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the third respondent/ District Forest Officer accepting the findings on fact. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the third respondent/ District Forest Officer accepting the findings on fact. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no punishment was imposed on the co-delinquents i.e. two other persons, who were charged for the same offence and the petitioner has been singled out for hostile treatment and punishment. This has been explained by the respondents in the counter stating that on proper enquiry, the authority came to know that the said two other forest guards were also charged. In the enquiry, it was found that they are not responsible for theft of sandalwood. Accordingly, the proceedings against them were dropped. The plea of discrimination is stoutly denied. 5. On the merits of the present case and in the admitted facts as above, this Court is unable to find any material to differ from the finding of the third respondent as confirmed by the Appellate Authority/ the first respondent. There is no allegation of violation of Principles of Natural Justice or breach of any provisions of law. 6. In such view of the matter, finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 2 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks benefit of promotion stating that the period of punishment is already over by relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court. The petitioner is entitled to make representation in this regard and the same shall be considered in the light of the Full Bench decision as applicable expeditiously.