Judgment This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order in Pro.Order No.5574/97/Pa, dated 27.03.2007 of the third respondent and direct the respondents to refund the amounts recovered from the pay of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner while working as Forest Watcher at Manipallam Beat, Alangudi Range, Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, the third respondent herein issued Charge Memo No.50/2003, dated 16.09.2003. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.03.2004. The third respondent by the order dated 31.01.2007, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for ten years without cumulative effect and by another order dated 27.03.2007, recovering Rs.6,26,787/- from his salary and recovering further amount from his provident fund amount. The petitioner has filed an appeal on 21.06.2007 before the second respondent. The second respondent after receiving the appeal, issued orders to the Regional Managers of Aranthangi and Pudukkottai, by Letter No.5660/09/Pa, dated 20.10.2010, to form a Special Committee and submit a report on the appeal submitted by the petitioner. As per orders of the second respondent, the Regional Managers of Aranthangi and Pudukkottai TAFCORN, submitted a report to the effect that the punishment imposed on the petitioner could be set aside, since the petitioner had taken steps to prevent illicit cuttings. In the said report, it is further stated that the mistake was on the part of the authorities to merge the Manipallam Beat to Alangudi Range and hence, the punishment imposed on the petitioner has to be set aside. 3. The second respondent even after receipt of the report of the Committee, did not dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has sent representations, dated 12.11.2009 and 15.02.2011 to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal at the earliest, considering the fact that in the appeal filed by the Co-delinquents viz., Anandraj, Forest Ranger, Illangovan and Akbar, Forest Guards, the punishment was set aside. Those persons are Co-delinquents and therefore, according to the petitioner, he is also entitled to the same benefit. 4. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the order dated 31.01.2007 and 27.03.2007. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order in the writ petition, is pending before the second respondent. 4. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the order dated 31.01.2007 and 27.03.2007. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order in the writ petition, is pending before the second respondent. Due to pendency of the appeal, the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have perused the materials on record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them. 7. In view of the admitted fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner, is pending before the second respondent, without deciding the issue on merits, the second respondent is directed to consider the said appeal on merits taking into consideration the fact that the punishment imposed against the Co-delinquents, viz., Anandraj, Illangovan and Akbar, had been set aside, the report of the Special Committee recommending to set aside the punishment imposed against the petitioner, since the petitioner took steps to prevent the illicit cutting of trees and stoppage of increment for ten years is disproportionate and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.