Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge memo to which explanation was submitted. The competent authority did not agree with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into charges. 3. In the enquiry, the petitioner demanded certain documents, but these were declined on the ground, that the documents asked for were not relevant to the charges framed. However, nothing has been disclosed as to whether documents sought for by the petitioner, were relied upon by the enquiry officer in holding the petitioner guilty. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was not given opportunity to examine one Purushothaman as defence witness, thus was denied the right to defend himself. 5. On the contention referred to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for quashing of enquiry proceedings as well as order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was held in violation of principle of natural justice. 6. On consideration, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. The reading of the enquiry findings shows that the findings are recorded on the basis of evidence, which cannot be said to be perverse to call for any interference, specially keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been imposed only a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 months without cumulative effect. The minor punishment could be awarded by issuing show cause notice and considering the explanation of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to show, if any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for non supply of documents or non examination of defence witness, as the findings of enquiry are based on correct appreciation of evidence. No ground is therefore made out to exercise writ jurisdiction. No merit, dismissed. No costs.