Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect by the impugned order dated 31.7.2002 issued by the respondent. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5621/2002 (W.P.No.6887/2007) to quash the said order. 3. The main ground of attack of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed relying on some enquiry report, but the same was not furnished to him and his views were not obtained. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating in para 8 that the petitioner need not be hereunder:- "8. The contention of the applicant is not correct. As already in para 3 it is not warranted to furnish a copy of the minute to the applicant in 3(a) charge. Had the applicant requested for a copy of the enquiry report it would have been furnished to him without any hesitation. Proper procedures have been adhered to in the charge against the applicant." 5. In my view, the respondent is not correct in passing the impugned order without furnishing the enquiry report that was relied on by him for imposing the punishment. It is not relevant whether the proceedings are under Rule 3(a) or (b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules. Even in the case of the proceedings under Rule 3(a) of the Rules, the principles of natural justice requires that the respondent should furnish the material that is relied on by him for imposing punishment. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.