Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 12.05.2004, confirming the order of the 1st Respondent dated 210. 2003, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. 2.Brief facts which lead to the filing of writ petition are as follows: .(i) The Petitioner was working as Movement Assistant at Tondiarpet godown in the Respondent Corporation to move the essential commodities to the Corporation retail shops. During the course of surprise inspection on 21.02.1997, checking DVAC officials noticed Sugumar, assistant giving a sum or Rs.1950/-to the Petitioner. Enquiry revealed that the Petitioner and others removed 15 bags of rice and sold to Krishnamoorthy for Rs.6000/- and received amount from the said Krishnamoorthy. The charge against the Petitioner is that from out of this said amount from Krishnamoorthy, petitioner received Rs.1950/-. .(ii) Based on the confidential report of DVAC three charges have been framed against the Petitioner. Since there was a clerical error in the charge memo A17/18403/99 dated 13.08.1999, the clerical error was corrected and revised charge memo was issued to the Petitioner in charge memo No.A17/18403/99 dated 28.02.2002. Senior Manager Accounts was appointed as enquiry officer by the proceedings dated 21.06.2002. The Petitioner submitted a reply/written explanation to the enquiry officer on 19.07.2002. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dated 011. 2002, holding the charges against the Petitioner proved. 3. The 1st Respondent in his memo Rc.No.A17/10403/99 dated 31.01.2003, calling upon the Petitioner to offer explanation to the findings of the enquiry officer. The Petitioner has submitted his written submission to the 1st Respondent on 15.09.2003 in person. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the 1st Respondent passed the order imposing penalty of withholding increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the same Petitioner has preferred appeal before the 2nd Respondent. By the impugned order dated 20.05.2004, the 2nd Respondent has dismissed the appeal. Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that there was violation of service regulation of TNCS Service Rules in conducting the enquiry. The Respondent assails the impugned order on the ground that the Respondents have failed to consider the explanation of the Petitioner and the order is wholly perverse and un reasonable. 4. Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that there was violation of service regulation of TNCS Service Rules in conducting the enquiry. The Respondent assails the impugned order on the ground that the Respondents have failed to consider the explanation of the Petitioner and the order is wholly perverse and un reasonable. 4. The Respondents have filed counter stating that as per rules charges were framed against the Petitioner and after following all procedures disciplinary action against the Petitioner was finalised. The Petitioner has failed to submit the filled in questionnaire form issued along with the charge memo dated 28.02.2002 with the explanation to the Respondents. The Petitioner admitted before DVAC that the amount of Rs.1950/-was received from Sugumar and upon consideration of the materials and admission of the Petitioner impugned order was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. V. Sanjeevi, has contended that as per regulation of TNCSC, for imposing major penalty the list of witnesses and documents are to be furnished to the delinquents and the mandatory procedure was not followed in the case of Petitioner. Placing reliance upon 1998(3) L.L.N. 326, K.Govindaswamy v. T.N.C.S.Corpn. Ltd., the learned counsel further submitted that in case of violation of statutory rules, the enquiry proceedings is vitiated. 6. The learned counsel for Respondents Mr. Selvanayagam, has contended that DVAC has noticed grave irregularities and disciplinary proceedings was held in accordance with Rules and after following all procedures and regulation of TNCSC punishment was imposed upon the Petitioner. Learned counsel for Respondents further contended that strict rule of evidence would not apply to departmental proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the procedure contemplated for awarding major penalty was followed. Learned counsel for the Respondents has urged that the Petitioner himself having admitted the receipt of amount, cannot challenge the enquiry proceedings. 8. Based on the report of DVAC in Na.KA.No.A17/18403/99 dated 13.08.1999 the following three charges were framed. No details of the alleged amount received by Petitioner and other delinquents are stated in the above charges. 9. In the above Charge Memo, DVAC letter dated 21.02.1997 was wrongly noted as 03.08.1999. After rectifying the defects revised charge memo was issued to the Petitioner and the following charges were framed against him. 10. No details of the alleged amount received by Petitioner and other delinquents are stated in the above charges. 9. In the above Charge Memo, DVAC letter dated 21.02.1997 was wrongly noted as 03.08.1999. After rectifying the defects revised charge memo was issued to the Petitioner and the following charges were framed against him. 10. Revised charge memo has made a detailed reference to DVAC report and that Petitioner, Jagadeeswaran and others have stealthily removed 15 rice bags and sold to Krishnamoorthy. The Petitioner and other delinquent are alleged to have received Rs.4050/- from out of which the Petitioner is alleged to have received his share of Rs.1950/-. After narrating the entire event and the mode of commission and irregularities on receiving the amount revised charges were framed against the Petitioner. 11. For proved charges, punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner. In (1994) 2 S.C.C. (L. & S.) 842, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others the Honble Supreme Court has held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without enquiry. In Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1990(2) L.L.N. 1019], the Honble Supreme Court has again concluded that directing stoppage of increments with cumulative effect would come within the concept of major penalty and imposition of such punishment without an enquiry would be illegal. 12. Following the said decision of the Honble Supreme Court, J. Kanakaraj, J., in an identical circumstance wherein the present respondent, namely, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation was a party, in A.G. Mohamed Jaffar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Ltd. [1992(1) L.L.N. 585], has held as under: "It is clear that only stoppage of increment is mentioned as minor punishment. Where the stoppage of increment is continued with cumulative effect for a period of two years, it means that two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty. Dealing with the similar rule, the Supreme Court of India in Kulwant Singh Gill V. State of Punjab [1990 (2) L.L.N. 1019], has pointed out that when stoppage of increment is ordered with cumulative effect and the rules are silent on that aspect, it would be deemed as a major punishment calling for a regular enquiry as prescribed for a major punishment. Following the dictum of the Apex Court, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed." 13. As per Chapter V of TNCSC Employees Service Regulation withholding the increment with cumulative effect for a specific period is a major penalty. Rule 4 of Chapter V deals with procedure to award major penalties. Chapter V rule 4 reads as under: "PROCEDURE TO AWARD MAJOR PENALTIES: (a) The competent authority as per Regulation 2, may either suo moto or on receipt of report as per explanation under that regulation or as indicated in Regulation 3 shall issue a memo recording the basis of charge, quoting the relevant rules or instructions omitted to be followed, the consequent result of such omission with specific charges suitable framed and the delinquent should be informed of the list of documents relied upon as the basis of charge, the list of witnesses whose versions also form the basis of the charge. The delinquents should then be required to furnish the list of witnesses if any on his defence within a reasonable time failing which the presumption would be that he has no witnesses on his defence. The competent Authority to impose the Major penalty thereon shall appoint an enquiry officer, immediately subordinate to him (punishing authority) to conduct an objective enquiry into the charges in the presence of the delinquent who should have been given due notice therefore. At the enquiry the documents relied upon in the charge memo should be made available to the delinquent for the perusal. The delinquents may also be permitted to peruse any other record of the Corporation that are relevant to the charges, if he/she so desires. If for any reason such records, desired to be perused, a re considered to be not relevant to the charges, the enquiry officer shall record so in his findings. So also the witnesses whose versions form the basis of the charges should be examined. Providing opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine. Thereon the witnesses produced by the delinquent should be examined with due relevance to the charges. The delinquent may also be permitted to file his written statement." 14. Admittedly Department action is based on DVAC report: "The following para added to Regulation 4(a) Chapter-V under Para 2 as per 226th Board meeting held on 25.03.1994 under Item No.57 and as per reference No.138543/93-G4 dated 03.06.1994. The delinquent may also be permitted to file his written statement." 14. Admittedly Department action is based on DVAC report: "The following para added to Regulation 4(a) Chapter-V under Para 2 as per 226th Board meeting held on 25.03.1994 under Item No.57 and as per reference No.138543/93-G4 dated 03.06.1994. "When departmental disciplinary action against an employee is taken up on a report from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, the Departmental Officer conducting the enquiry should intimate to the Directorate, the exact date of enquiry sufficiently in advance so that arrangement may be made for the production of witnesses and for the Directorate Officer, who conducted the investigation to assist the Enquiry officer" The enquiry officer shall summarize the proceedings analyse the evidence putforth before him examine the written statement of the delinquent carefully and give his findings on the charges framed (charge by charge).It is not for the enquiry officer to recommend the quantum of punishment. 15. In the present case no such procedure seems to have been filed, neither oral evidence nor document was adduced in support of the charge. Department has not chosen to examine the witnesses as per Regulation 4(a) Chapter (V). When enquiry proceedings is based on the report of DVAC, DVAC has to be informed sufficiently in advance so as to enable production of witnesses, and DVAC who conduct the investigation should assist the enquiry officer. In the present case, the enquiry officer does not seem to have asked DVAC for production to witnesses or documentary evidence. 16. In similar facts and circumstances in 1998 (3) L.L.N. 326 K.Govindaswamy v T.N.C.S.Corpn., Ltd, the employee of TNCSC was awarded punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect which was a major penalty. As per procedure, the Petitioner should be given opportunity for his personal hearing and should examine the witnesses specified by him. In such identical facts Justice P. Sathasivam (as His Lordship then was)held as follows: "11..... I am of the view that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it, certainly comes within the meaning of rule 16(1) (b) of the said Rules. In such identical facts Justice P. Sathasivam (as His Lordship then was)held as follows: "11..... I am of the view that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it, certainly comes within the meaning of rule 16(1) (b) of the said Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments, i.e., for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputedly mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In the words of his Lordship K. Ramaswamy, J., in the Bench decision reported in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab [1990(2) L.L.N. 1019] (vide Supra), in Para 4, at page 1022 "... The clock is put back to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time-scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years increments would not be counted in his time-scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if pealed off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent...." Hence, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner would attract rule 16(2) of the said Rules. Accordingly, as per the procedure, the Petitioner shall be given opportunity for his personal hearing and to examine witnesses specified by him and he shall be permitted to submit his explanation thereafter. Admittedly no one was examined on the side of the Corporation/Management and no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to examine his witnesses as claimed by him in the questionnaire form. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is well founded and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is vitiated." 17. In similar facts in an unreported decision in W.P.No.17414 of 1997, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months and also ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.1,67,354.40, was awarded. In similar facts in an unreported decision in W.P.No.17414 of 1997, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months and also ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.1,67,354.40, was awarded. Observing that the procedure for imposing major penalty was not followed and that there is violation of principles of natural justice, the learned single judge has quashed the punishment imposed on the Petitioner. The judgment was confirmed by the First Bench in W.A.No.3855 of 2004 by the order dated 11.04.2005. 18. In the light of above decisions, in my considered view when punishment was imposed withholding two increments for two years with cumulative effect, the Respondents ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under TNCSC Employees Service Regulation for awarding major punishment. The procedure contemplated for awarding major punishment was not followed and the entire proceedings is vitiated for violation of the Service regulation and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 19. While quashing the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment awarded, this court could have ordered fresh enquiry. But , now it is stated that Petitioner has retired and such direction cannot be given at this stage. 20. In the result writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Respondents are directed to disburse the terminal benefits if any payable to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.