appointment as Forest Guard, by transfer of service, no educational qualification is required except the physical fitness of the candidate. The requirement of the educational qualification was made only in the year 2001 by issuing G.O.MS.No.41, wherein Plus Two was prescribed as educational qualification. Since the petitioner's appointment was earlier to the said G.O., he cannot be found fault with. After the lapse of ten years from the date of appointment, the above charge memo was issued. An enquiry was conducted, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved. The petitioner submitted further representation on 22.03.2011 and 02.08.2011, pointing out that the educational qualification was not required during the relevant period of his appointment. In the said representations, an error had crept in the translated version with regard to his community by wrongly stating as Scheduled Caste instead of Backward Class. Immediately, he forwarded another representation dated 21.03.2012, informing the above said mistake. Considering all the representations, the second respondent through proceedings dated 29.03.2012, had withdrawn the charges. The said withdrawal was without any reservation for issuing fresh charges. While that being so, the petitioner was once again issued with a fresh charge memo on 30.03.2012, leveling the very same allegations. Therefore, the impugned charge memo is challenged on the grounds of delay, maintainability and non application of mind.
