Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police at Kallakurichi since 1.5.1997. A Charge Memo in PR.No.109/98 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his detailed explanation on 15.07.1999 denying the charges. The first respondent by impugned order dated 28.9.1999 imposed punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect. The appeal against the said order to the second respondent was rejected by order dated 2.2.2000 in C.No.B3/Appeal 89/99. The review petition to the third respondent was partly allowed by order dated 13.2.2001, modifying the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5331 of 2001 (W.P.No.49573 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid orders. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, based on which, the impugned order dated 28.9.1999 was passed by the first respondent imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect, was not furnished to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the impugned order based on the oral instructions. 5. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 6. The impugned order dated 28.9.1999 of the first respondent is extracted hereunder: "I agree with the findings of the G.O and the delinquent officer has neglected his duty which cannot be viewed seriously in general. He failed as Inspector of Police, in his over all supervision which were shown in counts 1 to 7. Hence, I award him the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulation effect." 7. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The categorical submission of the petitioner that the order was passed without furnishing the findings of the Enquiry Officer to him was not controverted in the counter affidavit filed. It is also not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. 8. It is also not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. 8. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.