Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. 3. The writ petition in W.P.No.13239 of 2003, has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Memo No.15010/Adm/A3/2002, dated 8. 2002, as confirmed by the second respondent in (Permanent) B.P.(Ch) No.248, dated 112. 2002 and quash the same. 4. It has been stated that the petitioner has joined in the service of respondent Electricity Board, as a Junior Engineer (Electrical), in the year, 1971. Later, he was promoted as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the year, 1979. Subsequently, he was promoted as an Executive Engineer in the year, 1997. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, he was working as Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance), Pochampally of Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri. 5. It has been further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had introduced a Self Finance Scheme to energise the pump sets used for agricultural purposes. According to the said scheme, a consumer had to pay Rs.10,000/-, apart from the current consumption charges. The Government of Tamil Nadu had fixed the target for energising the pump sets for agricultural purposes and for various other categories, for the months of March and April every year. 6. It has been further stated that when the petitioner was working as the Executive Engineer (Distribution) at Thirupatur, in the year, 1999, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had taken a policy decision to bring those prospective consumers, who had registered their applications under the Normal Scheme, into the Self Finance Scheme, to avail the supply of Electricity by paying the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, intimations had been sent to all the applicants, registered under the Normal Scheme, to opt for the Self Financing Scheme. Accordingly, the applicants had to exercise their option in writing. After receiving the intimation of their option, the Executive Engineer was to direct the applicants to pay a sum of Rs.500/-, towards the initial deposit, within 30 days, at their respective Section Offices. 7. It has been further stated that the priority list was to be maintained at the section office, on the basis of the payment of the initial deposit. 7. It has been further stated that the priority list was to be maintained at the section office, on the basis of the payment of the initial deposit. Thereafter, the respective Section Officers had to inspect the lands and the wells for which the supply of Electricity was required. The genuineness of the particulars given in the applications were also to be verified. Thereafter, the Section Officer concerned was to prepare the estimate for extending the electricity supply. After such verification and preparation of estimates, it was sent to the respective Assistant Executive Engineer for the verification of the estimates and for inspecting the lands and wells and for finally submitting the approval of the Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer would accord the sanction on the basis of the date of receipt of the proposal from the Assistant Executive Engineer. 8. It has also been stated that the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer at Tirupatur, during the month of August, 1999. 134 agricultural consumers opted to avail electricity supply, under the Self Finance Scheme. At that time, there was restrictions on installation of agricultural pump sets in dark or grey area blocks. The applicants falling under the dark or grey area blocks had to furnish Ground Water Clearance Certificate from the Ground Water Wing of the Public Works Department, on or before 33. 2000. The entire division of Tirupatur came under the dark and grey area blocks. Therefore, since all the 134 applicants had not furnished the necessary certificates, the section officer could not proceed further. However, on 210. 1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu had exempted the production of Ground Water Clearance Certificate. The said circular had been communicated to the petitioner by the Superintending Engineer, Tirupatur, only during the 1st week of November, 1999. The Superintending Engineer, Tirupatur, in his D.O. Letter, dated 111. 1999, has directed the petitioner to take necessary action for achieving the target for installation of Agricultural pump sets under the Self Finance Scheme, on or before 30.11.1999. The Superintending Engineer, Tirupatur, has sent a letter appreciating the petitioner for achieving the target during the year 1999-2000. However, the Chief Engineer, Distribution, Vellore Region, had issued a show cause notice, on 5. 2002, asking the petitioner to submit a representation for the lapses alleged to have been committed by the petitioner for sanctioning the estimates. .9. The Superintending Engineer, Tirupatur, has sent a letter appreciating the petitioner for achieving the target during the year 1999-2000. However, the Chief Engineer, Distribution, Vellore Region, had issued a show cause notice, on 5. 2002, asking the petitioner to submit a representation for the lapses alleged to have been committed by the petitioner for sanctioning the estimates. .9. It has also been stated that in spite of the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, had passed an order, under Regulation 8(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. Against the said order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent has passed a non-speaking order, confirming the earlier order passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had completed 32 years of unblemished service and he has already retired from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation. 11. No counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondents and no records had been submitted on behalf of the respondents. 12. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if this Court is pleased to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Memo No.15010/Adm/A3/2002, dated 8. 2002, as confirmed by the second respondent in (permanent) B.P.(Ch) No.248, dated 112. 2002 and if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for being decided, afresh, within a specified time, considering the explanation signed by the petitioner, on 16. 2002 and submitted to the first respondent, on merits. .13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is clear that the first and second respondents had passed the impugned proceedings without considering all the claims made by the petitioner in his explanation submitted to the first respondent. 2002 and submitted to the first respondent, on merits. .13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is clear that the first and second respondents had passed the impugned proceedings without considering all the claims made by the petitioner in his explanation submitted to the first respondent. In spite of various reasons having been stated in the said explanation, the first and second respondents have not consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law, before passing the impugned proceedings. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, in Memo No.15010/Adm/A3/2002, dated 8. 2002, as confirmed by the second respondent in (permanent) B.P.(Ch) No.248, dated 112. 2002, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to be decided, afresh, taking into consideration the explanation, dated 16. 2002, submitted by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the authority concerned and to co-operate in the process. Further, the petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the explanation, dated 16. 2002, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. 14. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. W.P.No.2984 of 2003: 15. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of the second respondent in Memorandum (Per) No.44664/A1/A12/2002-2, dated 20.12.2002, quash the same and direct the respondents to include the petitioners name in the appropriate place in the panel of Executive Engineers for the promotion of Superintending Engineers in Permanent B.P. (Ch) No.98 (Secretariat Branch), dated 5. 2002. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that in view of the orders passed in writ petition No.13239 of 2003, no further orders are required to be passed in writ petition No.2984 of 2003. Hence, the writ petition in W.P.No.2984 of 2003, stands closed. No costs.