JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner was working as a Police Constable. Later he was promoted as Naik. He was issued with a charge memo in P.R.No.42/2001 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The allegation was that on 04.12.2000 he did not attend Roll Call at 06.00 a.m. and he also absented for duty upto 04.00 p.m. on that day. He gave explanation that his mother was seriously ill. Under the circumstances he had to rush to his village. Hence he was not able to work upto 04.00 p.m. on 04.12.2000. Thereafter, the respondent awarded a punishment of Black mark by the impugned order dated 28.03.2001. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4795 of 2001 (W.P.No.47357 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2001. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Enquiry Authority was not furnished to him before passing the impugned order and hence the impugned order is illegal. 4. On the other hand, the Special Government Advocate sought for the dismissal of O.A. which has been now transferred and numbered as W.P. based on the counter affidavit. 5. It is well settled that the respondent ought not to have imposed the punishment based on the Enquiry Report without furnishing the same and asking the petitioner to give his explanation thereon. The passing of the impugned order based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer that was not furnished to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice. 6. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the same is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.