Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Agricultural Officer on 23.07.1965 and promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 28.11.1984. 2. The petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, on 29.09.1978, on the following charges. That during the absence of depot manager on other duty between 02.12.1977 to 05.12.1977, instead of entrusting the work of issuing sale bills either to the Agricultural Assistant or to the C.D.I. as per Government Memo No.47495/D.111/70-7, Agriculture, dated 12.08.1970, the delinquent himself attended the work of issuing bills with the ulterior motive of issuing bulk quantity of B He 10% in bogus names at concessional rate and then disposing of the scarcity of the chemical and heavy local demand from the farmers and roughly diverted a total concessional amount of Rs.3500/- for his personal benefits. 3. That during the absence of the Depot Manager on 31.12.1977, by utilising the services of Depot R.C., he had sold 275 Nos. of dimocron at concessional rate to imaginary persons and cheated the Government and by misusing the concessional amount of Rs.2852.50 for his personal benefits. 4. That instead of handing over the quantity of 350 kg of Sevin 50% taken delivery of from T.V.S.Lorry Office, Villupuram on 01.02.1978, only handed over the concessional value of the chemical to the Depot Manager after 07.02.1978 and forced the Depot Manager by threatening him with the help of Thiru.J.Velu, Agricultural Assistant to issue bills at concessional rates in bogus as Demonstration Assistant and Agricultural Assistant etc. and thus earned a profit of Rs.2664.00 rendering bogus records to cheat the Government. 5. That he has not followed the Departmental instrutions for issuing 20kg of BHC 10% per acre of crops affected by fulgerid and sold the same in bag lot affecting the interest of large number of farmers and allowed to enjoy the concession by very few persons. 6. That he has wantonly misplaced the prescription chiks (Application) relating to Sl.No.146 to 157, 161, 162, 163, 202, 209, 243, 244, 254 to 264 of the concessional sale register to escape from responsibility being fixed on him at a latter date for the issuing of bills in bogus names. 7. 6. That he has wantonly misplaced the prescription chiks (Application) relating to Sl.No.146 to 157, 161, 162, 163, 202, 209, 243, 244, 254 to 264 of the concessional sale register to escape from responsibility being fixed on him at a latter date for the issuing of bills in bogus names. 7. That even though the concessional sale of plant protection chemicals for fulgerid control was over by 31.12.1977 he continued in the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer (E), Kandamangalam, till 07.02.1978 but he has not cared to claim the operational charges under the scheme and allowed to lapse the Government of India subsidy sanctioned for the purpose which was mainly due to dereliction of his duty." 8. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and the enquiry officer held that charges 1 & 2 were not proved. Whereas charges 3 to 6 were proved against petitioner. 9. The competent authority agreed with the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. 10. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the punishment, but without waiting for the final outcome of appeal, approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by seeking exemption from proceeding with the appeal. The learned Tribunal allowed the prayer and admitted the writ petition. 11. The only ground of challenge to the impugned order, is that the competent authority, while imposing punishment, did not record reasons to hold the petitioner guilty of charges, therefore, impugned order is non speaking order. 12. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The reading of impugned order shows, that the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. It is recorded, that the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The order cannot be said to be a non speaking order, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Once the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, it was not necessary to repeat the same findings again. It is only in case the competent authority wishes to differ with enquiry officer, that the reasons are requested to be recorded to justify the findings. The competent authority is also required to give reasons if any objection is raised against findings of the enquiry officer. It is only in case the competent authority wishes to differ with enquiry officer, that the reasons are requested to be recorded to justify the findings. The competent authority is also required to give reasons if any objection is raised against findings of the enquiry officer. If the objections raised are same as already considered and rejected, and competent authority agrees with it, there is no necessity to write all those reasons again. 14. The punishment awarded also cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate to proved misconduct, as only minor punishment is imposed on the proved charges, which does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 15. Consequently, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.