Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed, as a Typist, on 8.6.1981. Later, he had been promoted, as an Assistant, on 24.12.1997. Thereafter, he had been promoted, as a Revenue Assistant, on 14.11.2002. On 20.8.2004, he had been promoted as the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar. On 13.6.2008, he was promoted as the Special Tahsildar (Civil Supplies). From 10.2.2011, the petitioner had been working as a Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravida Welfare), in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli district. From 21.2.2012, he had been working as a Welfare Tahsildar, at Thenkasi. Once again, the petitioner had been transferred to Sankarankovil Taluk, and he had been carrying on his duties at the said place, from 9.4.2012. 3. It has been further stated that the first respondent had issued a Government Order, in G.O.(D) No.145, Industries (E1) Department, dated 18.8.2010, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and 16 other officials of the Revenue and the Mines and Minerals Department, under Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued a charge memo against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in his proceedings, dated 28.8.2010. 4. Charge No.1 was that the petitioner, while working as a Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, in Sankarankovil office in Tiruneveli District, had failed to stop the illegal quarrying in government poramboke survey Nos.91/2 and 99/3, in an extent of 0.69.5 hectares, at Nakkalam Muthanpatti village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, and thereby, he had caused a loss to the Government, to the tune of Rs.6,88,846/-. 5. Charge No.2 was that, when the petitioner was working as the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, in Sankarankovil Taluk, he had failed to supervise the illegal quarrying operations, in Government poramboke lands and thereby, he had failed to discharge his official duty. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had never worked, as the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, at Sankarakovil Taluk Office, in Tirunelveli District, from 21.10.2005 to 30.4.2006, as alleged by the first respondent. In fact, the petitioner had been working, at Sankarankovil Taluk, as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, from 21.10.2005 to 8.3.2007, as per the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 20.5.2005. In fact, the petitioner had been working, at Sankarankovil Taluk, as Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, from 21.10.2005 to 8.3.2007, as per the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 20.5.2005. Therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner are baseless, as he was not connected with the alleged illegal quarrying operations, said to have taken place, from 21.10.2005 to 30.4.2006. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the charge memo had been issued against the petitioner without proper verification of the official records. Further, the charges levelled against the petitioner do not come under the purview of the Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as he had not caused any loss to the Government. 8. It had been further stated that the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this Court, in Writ Petition No.11664 of 2011, challenging the charge memo issued by the first respondent, dated 28.8.2010. This Court had passed an order, on 11.7.2011, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 3.1.2011, and to pass appropriate orders thereon. After obtaining a detailed report from the second respondent, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, vide proceedings, dated 27.3.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner to drop the charges. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court, under article 226 of the constitution of India. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent denying the avernments of the petitioner made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that, based on the report of the President of the Nakalamuthanpatti panchayat, an investigation had been conducted, by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption. Based on the said investigation, a report had been sent to the first respondent. Only thereafter, the Government had issued the common proceedings, under rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in G.O.(D) No.145, Industries (E1) Department, dated 18.8.2010. Thereafter, a charge memo had been issued, under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules, on 28.8.2010. 10. It has been further stated that the Director of vigilance and Anticorruption had provided the necessary evidence to show that the petitioner was functioning, as the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar in-charge, from 21.10.2005 to 30.4.2006. Thereafter, a charge memo had been issued, under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules, on 28.8.2010. 10. It has been further stated that the Director of vigilance and Anticorruption had provided the necessary evidence to show that the petitioner was functioning, as the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar in-charge, from 21.10.2005 to 30.4.2006. From the letter of the Tahsildar Sankarankovil Taluk, dated 16.3.2006, addressed to the Inspector of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, it could be noted that the petitioner had held the post of the Zonal Deputy Tahilsdar, during the relevant period. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he had not held the said post during the relevant period cannot be accepted. 11. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 27.3.2012, without giving proper reasons for arriving at his conclusion to reject the request of the petitioner to drop the charges. In his cryptic order, the first respondent had also stated that further action would be taken based on the enquiry report to be received from the enquiry officer, K.Balasubramanian, Joint Director of the Department of Geology and Mining. 12. It is noted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order without pointing out the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner. Even though the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner had been noted by the first respondent, in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, dated 27.3.2012, no proper reasons had been stated for rejecting the request of the petitioner to drop the proceedings initiated against him. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 27.3.2012, without considering the reasons stated by the petitioner, for dropping the charges against him. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 27.3.2012, is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. However, it would be open to the first respondent to pass an appropriate speaking order as found fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, giving proper reasons for the same. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.