Judgment 1. No appearance for the petitioner. 2. The matter lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was a Village Health Nurse. She was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules making certain allegations. There are six charges. The details of the allegations are not relevant for the disposal of this case. 3. An enquiry was conducted and it was held that all the charges are proved. Based on the same, the punishment order dated 10.04.2000 was passed by the second respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for four years with cumulative effect. The same was served on the petitioner on 06.06.2000. There is no dispute over the same. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the punishment order to the appellate authority-the first respondent, namely, Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai. The petitioner categorically averred in paragraph VI. 3 of the application that she sent the appeal to the first respondent by registered post on 03.08.2000 and the same was received on 06.08.2000 by the third respondent. But the aforesaid averment made in paragraph VI.3 of the application was not considered at all by the first respondent. 5. In the reply affidavit, on the other hand, it is stated in paragraph 17 that the petitioner preferred an appeal without date and the same was received by the third respondent on 09.08.2000 and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Director – second respondent on 10.08.2000. 6. The petitioner enclosed a copy of the appeal as well as the postal acknowledgment showing that the Medical Officer received the appeal on 06.08.2000. But the reply affidavit has proceeded as if the appeal was submitted to the Medical Officer on 09.08.2000 for forwarding the same to the appellate authority. Hence, there was a delay and the appeal was rejected by the first respondent by the order dated 17.06.2001 on the sole ground that the appeal was received on 09.08.2000 by the Medical Officer. The relevant passage in the appellate order dated 17.06.2001 is extracted hereunder : “TAMIL” 7. In my view, the appeal was received by the Medical Officer on 06.08.2000 as per the acknowledgment enclosed along with the typed set of papers. The relevant passage in the appellate order dated 17.06.2001 is extracted hereunder : “TAMIL” 7. In my view, the appeal was received by the Medical Officer on 06.08.2000 as per the acknowledgment enclosed along with the typed set of papers. Furthermore, dismissing the appeal on the sole ground that it was 2-3 days belated one is not fair and the valuable right of appeal cannot be denied to the petitioner on this type of technical ground, particularly, when the petitioner preferred the appeal and the delay, even according to the appellate authority, is 2-3 days only. Though the appeal is alleged to have been received on 09.08.2000, by the appellate authority, the petitioner has produced relevant material to substantiate her claim that the appeal was received by the Medical Officer on 06.08.2000 through registered post. As stated above, the appeal was not disposed of on merits, but on the ground that it was a belated one. 8. In the said circumstances, I have no hesitation to quash the appellate order. Accordingly, the order of the appellate authority – first respondent dated 17.06.2001 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to pass fresh order on the appeal of the petitioner dated 03.08.2000 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. This writ petition is allowed. No costs.