Judgment :- 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by one K.Saroja, challenging the order passed by the respondent/the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram, in Pro.Rc.No.A2/9591/2004 dated 31.5.2005, quash the same and issue consequential directions to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of Assistant with consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner, K.Saroja was appointed as Typist on 04.06.1990 in the Commercial Taxes Department and got promoted to the post of Assistant with effect from 07.05.1989. While serving as Assistant, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Villupuram, the respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules, in his Rc.No.A1/9591/2004 dated 25.10.2004, by framing four charges against her. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation to the above said charges. After receiving the copy of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation dated 28.10.2004, denying all the charges by pointing out that she had not committed any lapse as alleged in the charges and further it was also stated in her explanation that the Government had not incurred any loss on account of the alleged lapses. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for dropping of all the charges. 4. Having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the above charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer also conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter on 03.03.2005 and submitted his Enquiry Report dated 04.04.2005. A copy of the Enquiry Report was also communicated to the petitioner in Rc.No.A2/9591/2004 dated 05.04.2005 for further representation thereon. The Enquiry Officer, in his findings, held that all the charges except Charge No.III had been proved against the petitioner. But, even before the petitioner submitted her further explanation, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram, the respondent herein, passed final order dated 31.05.2005, imposing the punishment of Reversion as Typist for five years by specifically mentioning that the order shall take effect from 01.06.2005. Simultaneously, another order dated 31.05.2005 has also been issued in Pro.Rc.No.A1/4571/2005 posting the petitioner as Typist in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kallakurichi. 5. Simultaneously, another order dated 31.05.2005 has also been issued in Pro.Rc.No.A1/4571/2005 posting the petitioner as Typist in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kallakurichi. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Rule 14(a)(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules, the authority to impose the punishment of reduction to a lower post is the appointing authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram. Since the petitioner was working as Assistant, at the time of imposition of the said penalty, the appointing authority, being the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vellore, the impugned punishment cannot be imposed by the respondent/the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram who is subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vellore. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent/the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order of punishment in a vindictive manner, violating the provisions of the above said Rules and on that basis, prayed for quashing the impugned order by allowing the present Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner having committed serious lapses was made to face disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer appointed to go into the charges, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, submitted his report holding that all the charges except Charge No.III were proved. Therefore, the respondent/the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram imposed the punishment of Reversion as Typist for five years by specifically mentioning that the said impugned order shall take effect from 01.06.2005. On the basis of Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, namely, the respondent passed the order of punishment imposing the punishment of Reversion as Typist for five years. 7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Assistant at the time of passing the impugned order of punishment namely, the Reversion as Typist for five years from the post of Assistant. Admittedly, under Rule 14(a)(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules, the authority to impose punishment of reduction to a lower post in respect of the petitioner who was working at the time of passing the impugned order is only, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 9. Admittedly, under Rule 14(a)(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules, the authority to impose punishment of reduction to a lower post in respect of the petitioner who was working at the time of passing the impugned order is only, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 9. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by virtue of Rule 14(a)(2)(ii) read with Rule 15(b) of the said Rules, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram, has no jurisdiction to pass the order of punishment against the petitioner. Secondly, even after the submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent should have given a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation to explain as to why the order of punishment of Reversion as Typist for five years should not be imposed. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any such show cause notice to explain as to why the punishment of Reversion as Typist for five years from the post of Assistant should not be imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Villupuram, being without jurisdiction and also violative the principles of natural justice, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.