Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 111. 1990 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule alleging that he had purchased certain lands in Iroor Village in the name of his brother-in-law as Benami and he is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 012. 1990 denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation offered, an enquiry officer was appointed, who, after conducting enquiry, submitted his report on 09.05.1997 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner and merely, he was called upon to submit his explanation for the same without any indication that he is going to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner also submitted his explanation to the disciplinary authority and requested to accept the findings of the enquiry officer. While so, the disciplinary authority/second respondent, by his proceedings dated 04.08.1997 disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The appellate authority, to make the matter worse, without any basis, has enhanced the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, challenging the orders of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as WP No. 44222 of 2006. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of the appellate authority is illegal and against the procedure contemplated under Rule 23 (1) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority is empowered to enhance the punishment, but the appellate authority is bound to follow the provisions of Rule 23 (1) (iii) before enhancing the punishment. As per Rule 23 (1) (iii), the appellate authority is bound to give reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to explain as to why the punishment need not be enhanced and then pass an order of punishment. As per Rule 23 (1) (iii), the appellate authority is bound to give reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to explain as to why the punishment need not be enhanced and then pass an order of punishment. In the present case, though the appellate authority has given a personal hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware that the appellate authority is intending to enhance the punishment and the petitioner merely pleaded the appellate authority to set aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Under those circumstance, the order of the appellate authority is per se illegal, unlawful and it is liable to be set aside. 3. A detailedreply affidavit was filed by the respondents. The learned Government Advocate, relying on the reply affidavit of the respondents, contended that as far as the report of the enquiry officer is concerned, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitoner was given all fair opportunity to putforth his defence. Moreover, after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation and only after receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment. In the appeal, the appellate authority found that the punishment imposed on the petitioner for the delinquency is inadequate and not commensurate with the charges, therefore, the appellate authority has enhanced the punishment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In any event, the mandatory requirements have been followed by the respondents before passing the orders, which are impugned in this writ petition, therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of the appellate authority, enhancing the punishment is contrary to the provisions of Rule 23 (iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the said Rule, which is extracted as follows:- "23 (1) (iii). No order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 17 of making representation against such enhanced penalty. 5. No order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 17 of making representation against such enhanced penalty. 5. On perusal of the order of the appellate authority, it is clear that even though personal hearing was given to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the disagreement of the appellate authority or the enhanced punishment, which he is going to impose. Had it been informed to the petitioner, the petitioner would have pleaded to atleast confirm the order of the disciplinary authority and there is no need to enhance the punishment. Merely affording an opportunity of personal hearing is not sufficient inasmuch as the appellate authority has intended to enhance the punishment. Therofore, without disclosing the intention of the appellate authority to enhance the punishment, the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner will only be an empty formality. There is an error apparent on the face of the order passed by the appellate authority inasmuch as the said order is contrary to Rule 23 (1) (iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 6. Under those circumstance, the order dated passed by the first respondent/appellate authority in Na.Ka.A1/32511/97 dated 07.05.1999 alone is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.