Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner was appointed through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Supervisor of Industrial Cooperative on 1.8.1983. He was promoted as Industrial Cooperative Officer on 16.6.1995. 3. The petitioner was served with Charge Memo dated 17.12.1996 for the following charges: 1) That he had beaten Thiru V.S. Shenbagaraja, Assistant Supervisor of Industrial Cooperative with chappal on 25.9.96 during office hours in the presence of Thiru S. Ramachandran, another Industrial Cooperative Officer. 2) That he compelled Tmt.D. Vasanthakumari Steno-typist of that office to work after office hours and holidays with ulterior motive and also tried to misbehave with her. 3) That by his above misdemeanors he had acted in a manner most unbecoming of a member of civil service of the State. 4. The petitioner denied the allegations. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations. In the Inquiry proceedings, Thiru V.S. Shenbagaraja, Assistant Supervisor withdrew his complaint, whereas, the allegation with regard to the second charge was also not proved. 5. The Inquiry Officer, submitted a report on 27.6.97 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. 6. The Competent authority, without disclosing the reason or pointing out any technical defect in the inquiry, appointed another Inquiry Officer to hold de novo inquiry, which was not permissible in law. 7. However, the second Inquiry Officer, appointed to look into the charges, also exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. 8. The competent authority, on receipt of Inquiry Officer's report, did not agree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, and issued Memo dated 22.10.99 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charges. 9. The Memo served on the petitioner reads as follows: "Copies of the report of the Oral Enquiry and Personal Hearing in the disciplinary case pending against Thiru.C. Chandravasagam, Industrial Co-operative Officer, Office of the Deputy Director Incharge, Sattur are sent herewith wherein both the Inquiry Officers have opined that the Charge Nos.1,2 and 3 levelled against him are held as not proved. After careful examination of the disciplinary case with reference to the explanation of the delinquent officer and reports of both oral and personal hearing officers, the disciplinary authority disagrees with the explanation of the delinquent officer and remarks of both oral and personal hearing officers in respect of all the three charges in which the Disciplinary authority's views are sent vide annexure. Thiru.C. Chandravasagam, Industrial Co-operative Officer is directed to furnish his further representation if any on the proven charges within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this Memo without fail. Should he fail to furnish his further representation within the time limit, it will be construed that he has no further representation to offer and orders will be passed on merit of the case as per rules." 10. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Competent authority imposed a major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment was also rejected by the appellate authority. 11. On consideration, I find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law, being on the face of it, is arbitrary, thus, hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. 12. It was not open to the Competent authority to order de novo inquiry in the absence of any technical defect in the inquiry. In that event also, the Competent authority could set aside the inquiry, and remit the case back to the Inquiry Officer for further inquiry. 13. The second Inquiry officer also exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. The Competent authority, while disagreeing with the inquiry report, did not give any reason as to why the Competent authority had disagreed with the inquiry officer's finding. 14. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner, therefore, was merely an eyewash, as it did not disclose the reason for disagreement, so as to enable the petitioner to submit his effective explanation to the competent authority. 15. The reading of the show cause notice shows that the Competent authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer without assigning any reason, thus, the impugned order passed on the basis of such show cause notice amounts to violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not in a position to submit effective explanation in the absence of the reason of disagreement. 16. 16. The punishment order passed on such a show cause notice also cannot be sustained in law. The impugned orders therefore can safely be said to be arbitrary, amounting to colourable exercise of power thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the competent authority as well as the appellate authority are set aside. 18. No costs.