Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. .2. The petitioner has stated that he had entered service as a Junior Assistant, on 6. 76, in the Registration Department. He was promoted as an Assistant, on 5. 94. On 111. 93, a charge had been framed against the petitioner by the second respondent under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, alleging that he had not joined the new Station on transfer and thereby, caused inconvenience to the Department. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 11. 93, wherein he had stated that from 18. 93 to 110. 93, he had gone on medical leave. The petitioner had also enclosed a medical certificate in support of his leave application. However, the second respondent without proper application of mind, and by taking into account irrelevant factors, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect in his proceedings No.5627/A1/93, dated 294. The petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent had rejected the appeal, on 29. 95, stating that the petitioner had contravened Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred an Original Application before the Tami Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2467 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.27754 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner is an Assistant working in the office of the Joint II Sub Registrar, Namakkal. When the petitioner was working in the Sub Registrars Office at Mohanur, the District Registrar, Namakkal, had issued an order vide proceedings No.5627/A1/93, dated 30.7.93, transferring the petitioner to the office of the District Registrar, Namakkal. Instead of joining at the new Station, the petitioner had proceeded on leave and had manoeuvred to have the order of transfer cancelled. He had also exerted pressure on the District Register by bringing in political and other influences to get the order of transfer cancelled. Therefore, disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. He had also exerted pressure on the District Register by bringing in political and other influences to get the order of transfer cancelled. Therefore, disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Based on the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of stoppage of increment of three months without cumulative effect had been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order of the Inspector General of Registration. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected, an original application had been filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2467 of 1996. .4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner had gone on leave without joining the new Station on transfer. The impugned order passed by the second respondent does not take into account the Medical Certificate produced by the petitioner in support of his request for leave on medical grounds. It has been further stated that the second respondent had stated in his order, dated 22. 94, that Political and other influence were brought on the District Registrar, Namakkal, to retract the impugned order. Even though, nothing has been stated in the charge made against the petitioner that he had brought in political or other influence against the order of transfer given to him. The impugned order of the second respondent as well as the appellate order passed by the first respondent, seem to rely on such allegations while coming to their conclusions. It has also been stated that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. Thus, the impugned orders are contrary to law, arbitrary and against the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has also been stated that when the petitioner had produced a medical certificate in support of his medical condition, the second respondent had totally ignored the same. Thus, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent in passing the impugned order against the petitioner. It has also been stated that when the petitioner had produced a medical certificate in support of his medical condition, the second respondent had totally ignored the same. Thus, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent in passing the impugned order against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order passed by the second respondent and the order passed by the first respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner are illegal, ultravires and contrary to the principles of natural justice and therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect passed, on the petitioner is in accordance with law and therefore, the original application filed by the petitioner challenging the same cannot be sustained. The petitioner had exerted pressure on the District Registrar, Namakkal, by bringing in political and other influence to cancel the order of transfer issued to the petitioner instead of joining duty in the Station to which he had been transferred. The petitioner had gone on leave without prior permission and without the authorisation of the authorities concerned. Therefore, a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the second respondent had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment of three months without cumulative effect on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent after analysing the merits of the case had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by dismissing the appeal. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner ought not be granted by this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions. i) Krishna Chandra Tandon Vs. The Union of India ( AIR 1974 SC 1589 ); ii) Joginder Chandra Dass Vs. Union of India and others (1989 (6) SLR 524); iii) State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C.Aggarwal & Anr. (JT 1992(6) S.C. 673); iv) U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Padam Chand Jain ( 1995(4) SLR 742 ); v) Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of A.P (1995(7) SLR 330). 7. Union of India and others (1989 (6) SLR 524); iii) State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C.Aggarwal & Anr. (JT 1992(6) S.C. 673); iv) U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Padam Chand Jain ( 1995(4) SLR 742 ); v) Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of A.P (1995(7) SLR 330). 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the second respondent and the appellate order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained in view of the fact that extraneous factors have been considered while passing the impugned order. It is clear that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to meet those allegations which are found both in the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 29. 95, and in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the charge memo issued against the petitioner does not contain any such allegations. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the allegations that he had brought in political and other influence to cancel the order of the transfer given to him. Once it is clear that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to meet the allegations made against him, it could be held that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner would be unsustainable. Further, the factors which were taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, do not find a place in the charge memo issued to the petitioner. In such circumstances, in view of the decisions stated above, the impugned order, dated 22. 94, passed by the second respondent and order passed by the appellate authority, namely, the first respondent, on 29. 95, cannot be said to be valid and sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, they are quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.