Judgment :- 1. The petitioner while working as Head Constable in the Armed Reserve Police at Kanyakumari District, was served with a charge memo vide P.R.No.143/2000 dated 21.6.2000 under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The petitioner submitted explanation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyoor on 24.6.2000 who after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, forwarded his minutes to the first respondent on 14.8.2000, holding the petitioner not guilty. 2. The competent authority i.e. Superintendent of Police without recording a dissent note, or issuing show cause notice to the petitioner imposed a punishment of 'Blackmark'. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 4. The petitioner challenged the impugned order of punishment on the ground, that once the petitioner was not held guilty by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after giving opportunity to file his explanation, the first respondent could not have recorded the finding adverse to the petitioner, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and recording a dissent note. 5. The learned Spl. Govt. Pleader vehemently contended that in view of the allegations against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police being a competent authority by taking note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has imposed a minor punishment. The punishment also stands confirmed by the appellate authority taking into consideration the defence submitted by the petitioner, therefore no ground is made out to interfere with the minor punishment of 'Blackmark'. 6. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. It is well settled that if the competent authority disagree with the report submitted by the enquiry officer or the minutes recorded by the subordinate, then it is incumbent upon the competent authority to give reason for disagreeing with the enquiry officer/subordinate, and give an opportunity to the delinquent to submit his explanation. 7. It is not open the competent authority to impose punishment even if it is minor punishment in violation of principle of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules governing the service conditions of the employee. 8. It is not disputed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was entrusted with the enquiry, in the minutes submitted had found the petitioner not guilty. 8. It is not disputed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was entrusted with the enquiry, in the minutes submitted had found the petitioner not guilty. Thereafter, in view of the minutes of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was not open to the respondent No.1 to take a different view without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. The impugned order being in violation of principle of natural justice and service rules, cannot be sustained, nor the order of appellate authority can be sustained, as the appellate authority also failed to notice that the impugned order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice and was contrary to the minutes recorded by the Subordinate, i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.