Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer at Horticulture Farm, Katteri in Coonoor. He was issued with the charge sheet dated 14.03.1995 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules making two allegations. VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The crux of the charges was that there were some irregularities in maintaining the Nominal Muster Roll. According to the petitioner, he has no power to make any entries in the Nominal Muster Roll , as he is not the pay disbursing authority to the labourers. The power of maintaining Nominal Muster Roll and payment to the labourers are with the Horticulture Officer. The petitioner is nowhere connected with the alleged charges. 2. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were not established. The Enquiry Officer held that the Assistant Agriculture Officer is not responsible for maintaining the Nominal Muster Roll and it is the duty of the Horticulture Officer, who is responsible for maintaining the Nominal Muster Roll. 3. The Government issued a notice dated 26.06.1998 stating that the respondent came to the conclusion that the wages were not paid to the proper persons, though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were held as not proved. The petitioner was directed to give explanation on such a finding arrived at by the respondent. He gave explanation dated 25.09.1998, reiterating the stand that the charges were not established and that there is no evidence that the wages were not disbursed to proper persons. 4. The respondent passed the impugned G.O.(3D)No.158, Agriculture Department, dated 09.11.1999 imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 5. The petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5697 of 2000 (W.P.No.48091 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid G.O.(3D)No.158 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to grant all increments as per Rules. 6. While admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim order. 7. The respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 8. Heard Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved. The respondent has power to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In such an event, the respondent should give reason for disagreement. 8. Heard Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved. The respondent has power to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In such an event, the respondent should give reason for disagreement. According to the petitioner, while holding the charge that the petitioner did not disburse the wages to proper persons was held as proved, in their letter dated 26.06.1998, the respondent did not give any reason therefor. Hence, the impugned order is bad and illegal. 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent seeks to sustain the impugned order. 11. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 12. I have perused the two charges made against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer held that both the charges were not established in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner being the Assistant Agricultural Officer was not responsible for maintenance of the Nominal Muster Roll and for disbursement of salary. 13. The respondent issued a notice dated 26.06.1998 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation within 15 days, as the respondent came to the conclusion that the charge that the petitioner did not disburse the wages to proper persons, was established. The respondent also enclosed the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The said notice dated 26.06.1998 is as follows:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as stated above is that no reason was given by the respondent for differing views from that of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The above stated notice does not give any reason for its conclusion that the charge was established. It is true that the respondent could record a different finding from that of the Enquiry Officer. In that event, the respondent is bound to give reason for its conclusion. But the letter dated 26.06.1998 disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer does not give any reason for its conclusion. Hence, the impugned order is bad and illegal. The impugned order is liable to be set-aside and the same is set-aside. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.