Judgment :- On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Applications in O.A.Nos.1501 of 2000 and 1823 of 1998 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.45630 and 45631 of 2006. 2. The petitioner has filed two Original Application challenging the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect by order dated 28.01.1998 passed by the first respondent and quash the same in O.A.No.1823 of 1998 and seeking a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Penal of promotion of Divisional Development Officer/Personal Assistant to Collectors for the year 1998-1999 with all attendant and consequential benefits in O.A.No.1501 of 2000. 3. While the petitioner was serving as Additional Block Development Officer in Mandapam Taluk, he was served with a show cause notice dated 06.11.1997 by the second respondent/Development Officer (Panchayat), Ramanathapuram. After receipt of the above said Show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 23.12.1997. The disciplinary authority having not satisfied with the explanation ordered for enquiry to deal with the charges under Rule 17(a) of the T.N.C.S. (CCA) Rules, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and after completion of the enquiry proceedings, he submitted his findings before the disciplinary authority, holding him guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority without even giving a copy of the finding of the Enquiry Officer submitted by him and without calling for second explanation, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his submissions seeking to set aside the said impugned order. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo, the charges were unclear and vague. The petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation, however, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding. After submission of the finding of the Enquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority, the Disciplinary authority before imposing punishment was bound to furnish a copy of the report of Enquiry Officer to the petitioner and to give a second chance in the form of calling for the second explanation and after receipt of the second explanation alone, the disciplinary authority should impose the punishment. The disciplinary authority miserably failed to furnish the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and also failed to issue the second show cause notice. Without following the above legal requirements, the disciplinary authority imposed the said punishment which indicates the malafide attitude of the respondent and on that basis he prayed for setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the imposition of punishment as against the petitioner is violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counter filed in the present proceeding does not refer to any allegations made by the petitioner in these writ petitions. When the charges subsequently found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, there was no reference of the explanation offered by the petitioner in the counter. The counter has been filed without meeting any of the allegations made by the petitioner. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is also not able to support the case by relying upon the counter. The charge memo issued to the petitioner has not dealt with by the respondents in the counter. It is really a matter for all concerned to go through the counter. Though the counter affidavit is running about six pages, not even one single charge leveled against the petitioner has been met out properly by the respondents. In that view of the matter as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was issued with a charge memo alleging three charges, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and after receipt of the explanation, the disciplinary authority was legally entitled to proceed against him and ordered for enquiry by appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has to complete the enquiry proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the T.N.C.S.(CCA) Rules against the petitioner. But, the disciplinary authority after submission of the report of the Enquiry Officer miserably failed to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner calling upon his explanation. More so, the disciplinary authority also failed to issue second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his detailed explanation. In this matter, even if the second explanation is called for, the petitioner could not have submitted his detailed explanation for the non-furnishing of the finding of the Enquiry Officer’s report. 5. More so, the disciplinary authority also failed to issue second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his detailed explanation. In this matter, even if the second explanation is called for, the petitioner could not have submitted his detailed explanation for the non-furnishing of the finding of the Enquiry Officer’s report. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner cites the decision of this Court in Union of India (represented by its Assistant Commercial Manager Catering Head Quarters Officer, Southern Railway), Chennai and others v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and another – 2008 (4) L.L.N. 599). Even for imposing a minor penalty, under Rule 17(a) of the T.N.C.S.(CCA) Rules, the respondent is bound to furnish a copy of the finding of the Enquiry Officer and call for detailed explanation from the delinquent as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted. The said procedures have not been followed by the respondents while imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. In these circumstances, this Court proceeds that there was no useful enquiry worth its name conducted and as a result I hold that charges have not been made out. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of punishment is set aside. Since the petitioner has also retired from service, this Court directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the purpose of granting him pensionary benefits within a reasonable time preferably eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.