Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The petitioner has flied the above two writ petitions. W.P. No. 5471 of 1989 is against the recovery proceedings dated 9.7.1986. In W.P. No. 5472 of 1989 he challenged the punishment, namely, stoppage of increment for 6 months with cumulative effect. 2. The case of the petitioner, which are common in both the writ petitions, are briefly stated hereunder : According to him, he joined the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as a Watchman on 20.6.1976 and thereafter he was promoted as Packer in the year 1980. While he was working as Packer in the Corporation's retail shop at Venkatesapuram Perambur area, the respondent herein ordered a special audit of accounts of stocks and accordingly a special audit party audited the accounts and stocks of the shop and submitted its report for the period from Jan., 1982 to March, 1982. In the said report the special audit party had stated that certain irregularities and discrepancies have been noticed n the shop for the said period. The petitioner was given a memo along with the other employees employed in the shop on 8.9.1982 stating that he was also involved in the malpractices. Totally about 8 charges were framed against all the persons concerned. Out of these 8 charges, only 3 charges were related to the petitioner. They are : (i) Illegal removal of empty gunny bags; (ii) removal of weights; and (iii) removal of sugar. He had denied all the above charges by submitting his explanation and requested the respondent to hold an enquiry to prove the charges levelled against him. Instead of holding an enquiry, the respondent straightaway issued a recovery notice dated 20.5.1983 fixing his share of a sum of Rs. 6,338.58. At this request, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The respondent did not lead any evidence either oral or documentary in proof of the charges alleged against him and the enquiry was closed abruptly after recording his statement. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice on 21.11.1984 fixing his share of liability at Rs. 4,147.10. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent imposed a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 6 months with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director. The appellate authority' has also dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the General Manager (Administration). 4,147.10. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent imposed a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 6 months with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director. The appellate authority' has also dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the General Manager (Administration). In such circumstance, he approached this Court challenging the order of punishment as well as recovery proceedings.3. On behalf of the respondent, counteraffidavit has been filed denying various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that on the basis of the records and after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner, the Enquiry Authority found that all the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. While accepting the report of the enquiry officer, the General Manager (Administration) has passed an order imposing a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 6 months with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority and taking note of the gravity of the proved charges, the appellate authority has also confirmed. It is also stated that in the light of the above factual position, there is no ground to interfere by this Court. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking me through the charges levelled against the petitioner, his explanation, report of the Enquiry Officer and order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment, has submitted that the entire report of the Enquiry Officer has to be rejected since the same has not been supported by any evidence on the side of the management. He also submitted that if the report of the Enquiry Officer is eschewed, the order of punishment as well as recovery initiated by the respondents cannot be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken by them in the couriter-affidavit. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 7. There is no dispute as per the report of the special audit party, eight charges were framed against 4 persons including the petitioner. Out of these 8 charges, the following 3 charges were related to the petitioner : (i) Illegal removal of empty gunny bags; (ii) removal of weights; and (iii) removal of sugar. 7. There is no dispute as per the report of the special audit party, eight charges were framed against 4 persons including the petitioner. Out of these 8 charges, the following 3 charges were related to the petitioner : (i) Illegal removal of empty gunny bags; (ii) removal of weights; and (iii) removal of sugar. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would be that after obtaining the explanation statement from the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer without any evidence on the side of the management erroneously came to the conclusion that all the charges were proved. In the light of the above submission, I have carefully perused the report of the Enquiry Officer. It does not show that any one was examined on the side of the management in support of the charges framed against the petitioner. No doubt, the Enquiry Officer has referred to some documents, account book, bills etc. However, it is not clear how those documents and other materials were placed before the Einquiry Officer and who had spoken to with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after considering the statement of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges against him were proved. The manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer cannot be accepted. It is settled law that it is for the management to prove all the charges by letting oral and documentary evidence. It is not open to the Enquiry Officer to plead for the management and act as a management witness and arrive at a conclusion that charges are proved. How the Enquiry Officer has to conduct enquiry and how he has to arrive a conclusion has been explained in a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors. In the decision their Lordships have concluded thus : "5. We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is well settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicial. The enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is well settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicial. The enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipso dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipso dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well-settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh industries Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and as its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Utter Pradesh, this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasijudicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order-sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is thus report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.6. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is thus report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order-sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable." 8. In N. Radhakrishnan v, T.N.C.S. Corporation Limited, 1995 (1) LLN 1081 in a similar circumstances Shivaraj V. Patil, J., has concluded thus : "I have considered the submission. made by the learned counsel for the parties. Although several contentions were raised in the writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner urged them, I do not propose to deal with everyone of them as I am satisfied that the encluiry conducted was plainly opposed to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the management relied only on the statements of two delinquent officials to impose punishment on the petitioner to remove from service, that too when such statement were recorded in the absence of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examination. From the records, it is clear that no other statements of any witnesses were recorded and no documents were marked during the enquiry. Merely because the petitioner did not seek opportunity that would not mean that the charges were established. It was for the management to establish the charges by the materials on record. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. 9. In S. Vijayaraghavan v. T.N.C.S. Ltd. 1992 (1) LLN 586, J. Kanakaraj, J., has observed thus :" .... It was for the management to establish the charges by the materials on record. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. 9. In S. Vijayaraghavan v. T.N.C.S. Ltd. 1992 (1) LLN 586, J. Kanakaraj, J., has observed thus :" .... Lastly, as to how the petitioner was made liable, is not at all clear from the records or the impugned orders. The respondents have also not placed before me the duties and responsibilities of an Quality Inspector, to suggest as to the manner in which the petitioner had failed to follow the rules or failed to discharge his duties. In Workmen of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Madras, W.P. No. 9819 of 1988, dated 2nd February, 1988. Bakthavatsalam. J., while upholding the validity of the rules, has observed as follows : "The loss may be due to any of the reasons mentioned in rule 16 of the rules, which has been extracted above. As such I am of the view that the loss can be recovered from an employee only after a due enquiry, after giving full opportunity to the em-ployee and it cannot be recovered in any way in which the respondent-corporation is trying to do. In other words, the capability of that particular em-ployee should be proved for the storage loss. The reference to the culpability of the employee should be noticed." 10. In the light of the various decisions referred to above, after going through the report of the enquiry officer I am in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that disciplinary enquiry being a quasi-judicial enquiry, the same has to be held according to the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer must apply his mind to the evidence. He must put the name of witnesses of the management as well as the witnesses examined on the side of the delinquent. Even in the absence of any witnesses, the Enquiry Officer must satisfy that the charges levelled against the person concerned ate proved beyond doubt. It is not open to him to arrive at a conclusion merely on the basis of the statement of the petitioner. Even in the absence of any witnesses, the Enquiry Officer must satisfy that the charges levelled against the person concerned ate proved beyond doubt. It is not open to him to arrive at a conclusion merely on the basis of the statement of the petitioner. As observed earlier, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority based on the report of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained. I have already observed that from the records it is clear that no other statement of witnesses have been recorded and no documents have been marked during the enquiry. It was for the management to establish the charges by placing the materials on record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents made a faint argument stating that the punishment imposed namely stoppage of increment for 6 months with cumulative effect is a minor punishment; hence there need not be any detailed enquiry. After going through Rule 16 of the Service Rules of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, I am unable to accept the above argument because as per Rule 16(1)(b) only stoppage of increment is a minor punishment. Here, in our case it is a stoppage of increment for 6 months with cumulative effect. The said punishment has not been included under the caption "minor punishment" in Rule 16(1) of the said Rules. Accordingly, the said contention cannot be accepted and I hold the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major punishment. Accordingly, the procedure contemplated under the rule has, not been fully complied with.11. In the light of what is stated above, the report of the Enquiry Officer is vitiated and the same cannot be relied upon by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Net result, the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are quashed and accordingly the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Petition allowed.