Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records from the respondents and quash the order of the first respondent in Proc.No. CMWSSB/P&A/Vigilance/VC (Appeals) /43968/2001 dated 11.02.2002 confirming the order of the third respondent in Proc.No. CMWSSB/P&A/VC1/15429/2001 dated 08.08.2001, awarding punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect as illegal and arbitrary violating the principles of natural justice, fair play and contrary to the CMWSSB (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. 2. The petitioner, who was serving as Assistant Engineer in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the first respondent herein, was issued with a show cause notice dated 24.05.2001 for the following charges under Rule 10(1) of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulation 1978:- i. The petitioner failed to prepare Material Indent Note (for short “MIN”) for taking delivery of 250 mm die C1 pipes and specials from the stores and to issue to the contractor and to speed up the Port Trust work. ii. He has not produced MIN till the date of issuance of show cause notice for monster Machine, neglecting the instructions from the superiors. iii. He had cultivated the habit of coming late to office by 10.00 a.m. He also absented himself from duty on 09.04.2001 and 16.04.2001, without getting prior permission from his superiors. iv. He was disobedient to his superiors, without extending any co-operation to them. v. He failed to hand over the charges to Royapuram pumping station to his successor. He in fact kept all the records in his lock and key causing dislocation of work. 3. With respect to the first charge the petitioner submitted his explanation that the file relating to the Port Trust work could not be secured inspite of the best efforts taken by him and therefore, he was not in a position to prepare the MIN. It was also submitted that a criminal proceedings as against the contractor one Athi Parasakthi, who was doing Port Trust work was pending investigation and the relevant file was with the investigating officer. 4. It was also submitted that a criminal proceedings as against the contractor one Athi Parasakthi, who was doing Port Trust work was pending investigation and the relevant file was with the investigating officer. 4. The disciplinary authority having admitted the pendency of a criminal case as against the Contractor Athi Parasakthi and the entrustment of the relevant file to the Investigating officer in connection with the said criminal case made an observation in the order passed by him that the petitioner should have taken efforts to secure a copy of the said file. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being an Officer in the lower rank in the first respondent Board could not have approached the Investigating Official directly to secure a copy of the relevant file relating to the Port Trust work for the purpose of preparing MIN. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner should have taken all efforts to secure the file for the preparation of MIN, but, he had not done so and therefore, the disciplinary authority having not accepted the explanation chose to make such an observation that the petitioner should have taken efforts to secure a copy of the relevant file. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the superior authority should have approached the Investigating official to secure the relevant file relating to the Port Trust work facilitating the petitioner to prepare the MIN as required by the Superiors. In the absence of relevant file, there is every possibility for the petitioner to place Indent of materials not really required for the purpose of execution of the contract. It will also have to be borne in mind that a criminal prosecution had already been launched as against the Contractor Athi Parasakthi for swindling the materials entrusted to him for execution of the work. No wonder the petitioner waited for the relevant file to avoid further complications in the matter. Unfortunately, such an explanation given by the petitioner did not receive acceptance from the disciplinary authority. 8. Coming to the second charge, the petitioner has explained that the costly monster machine could not be safely kept in the office premises. No wonder the petitioner waited for the relevant file to avoid further complications in the matter. Unfortunately, such an explanation given by the petitioner did not receive acceptance from the disciplinary authority. 8. Coming to the second charge, the petitioner has explained that the costly monster machine could not be safely kept in the office premises. Therefore, the petitioner had asked to provide necessary place and security for keeping the costly machine before ever releasing the machine by placing Indent by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority never touched the said explanation given by the petitioner. 9. It is very much relevant to refer straightaway the provision under Regulation 10(1) of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulations 1978. It reads that, in every case where the disciplinary authority proposes to impose minor penalty as contemplated under Regulation 5, the delinquent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to explain and make his representation and thereupon the disciplinary authority shall impose the minor penalty after seriously considering the explanation submitted by the delinquent. 10. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the disciplinary authority completely failed to refer to the above explanation given by the petitioner with respect to the second charge and therefore, it will have to be presumed, in the absence of any consideration given to such explanation by the disciplinary authority, that the explanation given by the petitioner was accepted. 11. As regards the third charge, the disciplinary authority chose to refer to the explanation submitted by the petitioner only with respect to the first limb of the said charge. The explanation offered with respect to the second limb of the said charge that the petitioner absented himself from duty on 09.04.2001 and 16.04.2001 was not at all considered by the disciplinary authority. Infact, the explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the first limb of the charge was almost admitted by the disciplinary authority, but the disciplinary authority would make an observation that the petitioner who has gone out for collection of tax and charges should have informed his superiors before ever he ventured to go out for collection of tax and charges. At any rate, the fact remains that he had gone for collection of tax and charges before attending the office. At any rate, the fact remains that he had gone for collection of tax and charges before attending the office. It is found that he had to attend to the job of the Depot Manager, who failed to render his assistance in the matter of collection of tax and charges. Unfortunately such an explanation also was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. 12. That the petitioner was disobedient to his superiors without extending any cooperation is the fourth charge leveled against him. The disciplinary authority has made an observation with respect to the aforesaid charge as follows:- “From the explanation given by the charged official it is evident that he is insubordinate to the superiors”. On a careful perusal of the explanation given by the chargesheeted officer, nothing could be found that he submitted his explanation arrogantly invoking the wrath of the superior officers. Even if a contumacious officer, who was chargesheeted gives such an explanation, which in the opinion of the disciplinary authority amounts to insubordination, a separate charge will have to be leveled against the officer. The aforesaid remark made by the disciplinary authority speaks of the pre-determined approach of the disciplinary authority. 13. Lastly, the petitioner was charged that he failed to hand over charge of Royapuram Pumping Station to his successor. He has given an explanation that no successor was posted in his place and therefore, he had to proceed keeping the entire records in lock and key as a safety measure to take charge of his post in a different location. The disciplinary authority made an observation in his order as follows:- “In the absence of his successor he could have given the charges to his immediate boss…”. Of course, the petitioner should have sought for some clarification from the authority concerned as to whom the charges could be handed over in the absence of successor. It appears that he has strictly followed the instruction found in his transfer order, which mandates to hand over charge to his successor. The authority who transferred him cannot plead ignorance of the fact that no successor was posted to succeed the post of the petitioner on his transfer. In the transfer order, it should have been specifically referred that the person to whom the petitioner should hand over the charges in the absence of any successor. The authority who transferred him cannot plead ignorance of the fact that no successor was posted to succeed the post of the petitioner on his transfer. In the transfer order, it should have been specifically referred that the person to whom the petitioner should hand over the charges in the absence of any successor. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did not care to hand over the charges to his successor inspite of the information passed on to him about the posting of a successor in his place later. Therefore, the action of the petitioner cannot be found fault with. 14. The petitioner has made out before this Court that the convincing explanation given by him was not seriously considered by the disciplinary authority, while passing the order of punishment in accordance with Regulation 10(1) of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulations 1978. The minor punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, of course, without cumulative effect was awarded to the petitioner when there is virtually no material to establish the charges. 15. To top it all, the appellate authority has very casually disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioner by simply observing that there was nothing new in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 16. The manner of disposal the appeal preferred by the aggrieved employee is adumberated under Regulation 22 of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulations 1978. The appellate authority is bound to consider during the course of disposal of appeal preferred against order passed by the disciplinary authority as to (a) whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; (b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate. The disposal of the appeal in a in a casual manner exposes the non-application of mind by the appellate authority. None of the requirements as adumberated under Regulation 22 of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulations 1978, was satisfied by the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal. 17. The disposal of the appeal in a in a casual manner exposes the non-application of mind by the appellate authority. None of the requirements as adumberated under Regulation 22 of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulations 1978, was satisfied by the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal. 17. On a careful perusal of the grounds of appeal set up by the petitioner before the appellate authority, it is found that he has specifically brought to the notice of the appellate authority that some of the explanation submitted with respect to certain charges were virtually accepted by the disciplinary authority, yet the petitioner was punished. Such a potential ground taken by the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him before the appellate authority was never considered by the appellate authority. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that no detailed enquiry need be conducted while awarding minor punishment. But the fact remains that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority shall adhere to the mandates found under Regulation 10 (1) and 22 of Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees’ Service Regulations 1978 as the case may be. As there is nothing on record to establish the charges leveled against the petitioner and the impugned orders have been passed very casually, this court finds that the Writ petition will have to be allowed. 19. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 3 dated 11.02.2002 and 08.08.2001 respectively, stand quashed and the writ petition is consequently allowed. There is no order as to costs.