Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner had entered the service in the Police Department, as a directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police, on 110. 1976. He was promoted as an Inspector of Police, on 312. 1987. He had received 50 rewards during his service and no adverse remarks had been made. Even though he was fully qualified for being promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-I, from the cadre of Inspector of Police, he was denied the promotion, as his claim, to be included in the panel of the year 1999-2000, had been deferred. However, his junior Mardsen Leo had been included in Serial No.54, of the panel and he had also been promoted thereafter. 3. It has been further stated that while the petitioner was serving as an Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Special Team, Chennai, at Vellore, from the month of October, 1998, till 37. 1999, he had been served with a charge memo, on 30.9.1999, after he had been relieved from the Civil supplies, CID and repatriated to the City Police, Chennai. He was also issued with another charge memo, in PR.No.8/79. The charge memo had been issued without any basis and they were only due to the vindictive attitude of the concerned police officials. Further, the charge memo issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, is without jurisdiction. 4. It has been further stated that a detailed explanation had been submitted by the petitioner denying the charges levelled against him. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had issued the charge memo, had prepared a minute holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. The said minute had been submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, the first respondent herein, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without furnishing a copy of the enquiry officers report, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, he had imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the second respondent. Accordingly, he had imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the second respondent. However, the second respondent had rejected the appeal, without considering the points raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a review petition to the third respondent. The third respondent had also confirmed the order of the second respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner had challenged the impugned proceedings before this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority, the first respondent herein, had passed the order, dated 12. 1999, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect, on the petitioner, confirming the findings of the enquiry officer, without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the second respondent, the appellate authority, had confirmed the order of the first respondent by his order, dated 6. 2000, without giving proper reasons for doing so. The review petition filed by the petitioner had also been dismissed by the third respondent, by an order, dated 14. 2001. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent is without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled position that a copy of the enquiry report ought to have been furnished to the petitioner to submit his explanation thereon before he had passed an order imposing the punishment. However, the first respondent had not furnished the copy of the enquiry report, before he had passed the impugned order, dated 12. 1999. On the appeal filed by the petitioner, the second respondent, as well as the third respondent, had confirmed the order of the first respondent, without application of mind and without giving proper reasons. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the claims made by the petitioner and the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Further, no records have been placed before this court to contradict the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 12. Further, no records have been placed before this court to contradict the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 12. 1999, and the appellate order of the second respondent, dated 6. 2000 and the review order of the third respondent, dated 14. 2001, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent. The first respondent is to pass appropriate orders, based on the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth his case by way of an explanation, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.