Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that he has been working in the respondent Department, as a Superintendent. While so, certain charges had been framed against the petitioner, by way of a charge memo, dated 10.8.2009, issued by the second respondent, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. However, by a modified charge memo, dated 6.10.2009, two charges had been levelled against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 3. The enquiry officer, who had conducted the enquiry proceedings, had submitted a report, dated 24.12.2009, holding that one of the charges levelled against the petitioner had been partly proved. However, on the request of the petitioner, the second respondent had directed a de- novo enquiry to be conducted, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter, de-novo enquiry had been conducted and the enquiry officer had submitted the enquiry report, dated 16.12.2010, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. However, the second respondent disciplinary authority had decided to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer and had imposed the punishment of reduction in the rank of the petitioner, by ten places, in seniority, upto 31.8.2012. 4. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, on 21.2.2011. The first respondent, by his impugned order, dated 13.8.2011, had reduced the punishment imposed on the petitioner to reduction in seniority, by two places. Challenging the said order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, even though the enquiry officer had submitted a report, dated 16.12.2010, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved, the second respondent had decided to impose the punishment of reduction in the seniority of the petitioner, by ten places, without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, before passing the said order. 6. The appellate authority had not considered the said aspect before he had passed the impugned order, dated 13.8.2011, reducing the punishment imposed on the petitioner to two ranks, upto 31.8.2012. 7. 6. The appellate authority had not considered the said aspect before he had passed the impugned order, dated 13.8.2011, reducing the punishment imposed on the petitioner to two ranks, upto 31.8.2012. 7. The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not been refuted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not been in a position to show that a notice had been issued, by the second respondent, to the petitioner, before deciding to impose the punishment of reduction in seniority, by two places, on the petitioner, while differing from the findings of the enquiry officer. 8. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 13.8.2012, and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 9.2.2011, imposing the punishment of reduction in seniority of the petitioner, by ten places, are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, after issuing a notice to the petitioner, for differing from the findings of the enquiry officer in his report, dated 16.12.2010, before deciding to pass an order of punishment, on the petitioner, if any. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.