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 dated 02.03.2001 vide which the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was served with the charge memo on the allegation of negligence. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had neglected the duties and responsibilities in planting of 1000 seedlings from NH47 to Manaltheri road (via) Savarikothalam, by entrusting it to a private contractor Thiru S.Sadasivam. The enquiry officer did not find the petitioner guilty of charge. 3. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had not visited the work spot, thereofre false NMRs and vouchers were prepared by the Rural Welfare Officers. The Rural Welfare Officer had marked attendance of the labourers engaged in the completed work, prepared the bills and also made payment to the labourers. 4. The petitioner in defence stated that he had put his initial for the number of labourers who were actually engaged, and as he was incharge of so many works in Agasteeswaran Panchayat Union, therefore, he was not able to note each and every work in his diary. 5. This charge was also not proved against the petitioner in the enquiry. 6. The competent authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Government held both the charges referred to above proved, against the petitioner and imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged, the impugned order; Firstly on the ground that the impugned order is totally non speaking order, as it gives no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. Secondly, That impugned order cannot be sustained, as an order passed in exercise of quasi judicial authority, has to be a speaking order, which should disclose the reasons for coming to a conclusion, so that higher Court/authority can consider, whether the findings recorded is outcome of application of mind and recorded rightly. 8. On consideration, this Court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. On consideration, this Court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the order shows that the Secretary to Government has merely recorded that all the four witnesses deposed well in the departmental enquiry and there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence to hold the charges as proved. 9. The evidence of the witnesses is not recorded in full or in part, nor any reference has been made to oral and documentary evidence which could show that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 10. It is recorded that Government have examined the case carefully and independently along with connected records including the findings of the enquiry officer and the defence statement of the delinquent officer and decided to hold the two charges as proved against the delinquent officer. 11. The order further suffers from other legal lacuna, of not having issued show cause notice to the petitioner, before recording the finding of guilt, the impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in law. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of punishment is set aside. The case is remitted back to the State Government to re-consider the case and pass detailed speaking order giving reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and by recording the finding in accordance with law after notice to the petitioner. No costs.