Judgment :- The petitioner is the Village Administrative Officer. According to him, he was appointed on 1.1.2004. 2. It is stated that as per D.O.Lr.No.A3.72744/83 dated 29.7.1983, the clarification was issued that the Village Administrative Officer need not submit fortnight diaries, which they used to submit prior to the said letter. Accordingly, the statement of the reports are given a go by. It is further stated that in G.O.Ms.No.212 Revenue (Services) Department dated 29.4.1999 issued orders directing the Village Administrative Officers in the State to submit the fortnight diaries to the respective Tahsildars and Zonal Tahsildars. Therefore, in the year 1999, the earlier practice was reintroduced. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that their association took up the matter with the Government to withdraw the order and the decision of the Government is pending. It is further stated that the District Collector, Sivaganga, issued a memo dated 16.12.1999 directing the Tahsildars to withhold the payment of fixed Travelling Allowance paid to the Village Administrative Officers if they failed to submit the fortnight diaries in accordance with the Government Order. Aggrieved by the same, the association filed O.A.No.608 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and interim stay was also granted. As such the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration has issued a circular dated 7.11.2003 to all the District Collectors directing them not to withhold the payment of fixed Travelling Allowance for the Village Administrative Officers for not submitting the fortnight diaries. However, the Government has directed the District Collectors to take disciplinary actions against the Village Administrative Officers for not submitting the fortnight diaries. The representation of the Village Administrative Officers' Association is pending consideration. 4. This is the back-drop in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner. His specific case is, while working in the initial days, he was submitting his diaries regularly but now he did not submit the diaries as their Association has sent representation to the Government and he is awaiting for the orders of the Government. While so, the second respondent, who is the Tahsildar of Uthamapalayam issued a Charge Memo under Rule 17-A on 13.8.2004 in the standard format directing him to submit the explanation for not sending the fortnight diaries. It is specifically stated at page 8 that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to 17-A Charge Memo. While so, the second respondent, who is the Tahsildar of Uthamapalayam issued a Charge Memo under Rule 17-A on 13.8.2004 in the standard format directing him to submit the explanation for not sending the fortnight diaries. It is specifically stated at page 8 that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to 17-A Charge Memo. There was no enquiry in pursuance of the charge memo. The Village Administrative Officers. Association, has sent representation to the District Revenue Officers to drop further action on the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner since the matter was pending. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 11.10.2004 imposing the punishment for stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent is not the appointing authority and therefore, the impugned order issued by the second respondent is illegal as it was passed without authority of law and is liable to be quashed. In support of the said contention, it is stated that the State Government has issued Special Rules for the Village Administrative Officers through G.O.Ms. No.362 and P & AR Department and according to Rule 2 of the said Special Rules, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the appointing authority for the Village Administrative Officers and the second respondent is only a Tahsildar and he has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Perused the above special rules particularly Rule 2. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents has also fairly submitted that it is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority to initiate enquiry or to pass any disciplinary orders. 7. In a batch of writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.22913, 22862 and 2282 of 2004, on 23.8.2004, the Principal Bench of this Court was pleased to observe as follows: "2. However having regard to the fact that the second respondent is shown not to be the competent authority to take any action against the petitioners and the first respondent being the appointing authority who alone can take any action against the petitioners, I have no hesitation at all to quash the impugned order in each writ petition. 3. However having regard to the fact that the second respondent is shown not to be the competent authority to take any action against the petitioners and the first respondent being the appointing authority who alone can take any action against the petitioners, I have no hesitation at all to quash the impugned order in each writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed as prayed for reserving the liberty of the first respondent to take any action in accordance with law if he deems fit and permitted by law. The impugned orders are quashed. No costs. Consequently, the above W.P.M.Ps., are dismissed as unnecessary." 8. Following the same, in W.P.Nos.911 and 912 of 2004, this Court has also quashed the impugned orders of the second respondent by order dated 22.12.2005. 9. Since the rules are specific that the first respondent being the appointing authority can alone take action against the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed quashing the order of the second respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.(MD) No.3134 of 2004 is closed. The first respondent is at liberty to take any action in accordance with law if he deems fit and necessary as admittedly, he is the appointing authority and disciplinary authority.