JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was appointed directly as Sub Inspector of Police in 1979. He was promoted as Inspector of Police in 1994. While he was serving as Inspector of police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Tirunelveli during the year 2000, he was on leave from 26.1.2000 to 01.3.2000. 2. One Thiru. Krishnamurthy, Inspector of Police Civil Supplies C.I.D., Nagercoil was in-charge of Tirunelveli unit. Thiru. K. Krishnamurthy, raided a rice mill namely Annathammal Kasi Modern Rice Mill at Karisalkulam, Kovilpatty Taluk on 18.2.2000 and seized 3,935 bags of rice from the two Godowns of the said mill. He also put seal to the Godowns from where the rice bags were seized. Further, he handed over the seized rice bags to the Taluk Supply Officer, Kovilpatty. 3. The petitioner, after the expiry of the leave continued with the investigation. He submitted a report dated 20.03.2000 to the District Collector, Thoothukudi to confiscate the tender rice handed over to Taluk Supply Officer. The District Collector is the competent authority to confiscate rice. But no order was passed by the District Collector for confiscation of rice as contemplated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner also sent another letter dated 12.12.2000 for confiscation of the rice. 4. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.215 Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection department, dated 09.11.2005 to initiate departmental action against the persons, who are responsible for the lapses in the aforesaid incident. Para 6 of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder: "TAMIL" 5. In the meantime, the Director General of Police issued a charge sheet dated 13.6.2008 to the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. A similar charge memo was issued to Thiru. Krishnamurthy, the then Inspector of Police, who was in-charge of Tirunelveli unit, at the time of seizure. 6. Two charges were made in the charge memo dated 13.6.2008. Those charges are as follows: "i) Gross neglect of duty in having kept the seized rice bags in the Godown of Annathammal Kasi Modern Rice Mill instead of sending them to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown then and there. 6. Two charges were made in the charge memo dated 13.6.2008. Those charges are as follows: "i) Gross neglect of duty in having kept the seized rice bags in the Godown of Annathammal Kasi Modern Rice Mill instead of sending them to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown then and there. (ii) Gross dereliction of duty and failure to send report in time to the collector, Thoothukudi to give interim disposal to the seized rice as per section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, though he was aware that the seized rice were discoloured and that the authority in Civil Supplies Corporation Godown has issued quality certificate that they were discoloured which has resulted in the rice becoming rotten as it was kept sealed, as a result of which the Government have incurred a monetary loss of Rs.26,72,408.70 towards compensation to the owner of the rice mill on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras." 7. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.1.2009 pointing out that he was on leave during the said incident and also took action on 20.3.2000 requesting the Collector to confiscate the rice. However, the Director General appointed the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Chennai as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24.12.2010 holding that the charges against the petitioner were partially proved. The Enquiry Officer held that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in sending report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the District Collector. 8. It is relevant to note that the Director General of Police, who issued the charge sheet and appointed the Enquiry Officer, sent a letter dated 18.2.2009 to the Government recommending for dropping of further action against the petitioner and Thiru. Krishnamurthy. 9. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent sent a notice dated 13.6.2011 asking the petitioner to submit his remarks on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner made a representation dated 13.7.2011 to the respondents on the report of the Enquiry Officer. 10. While so, the respondents passed the impugned G.O.(2D) No.408, Home (Pol.2) Department, dated 14.11.2011 imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment for one year with cumulative effect. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said impugned order. 11. 10. While so, the respondents passed the impugned G.O.(2D) No.408, Home (Pol.2) Department, dated 14.11.2011 imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment for one year with cumulative effect. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said impugned order. 11. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents refuting the allegations. It is alleged in the counter that the petitioner failed to send a mandatory report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to District Collector, Thoothukudi, in time, and hence, there was no infirmity in the impugned order imposing the punishment. 12. Heard both sides. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel urged four more grounds in support of his contention and they are as follows: (i) The initiation of disciplinary proceeding is violative of Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. (ii) He submitted that the impugned order as well as report of the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty, is totally perverse, since the petitioner sent a representation dated 20.3.2000 to the District Collector for confiscation of the seized rice. Furthermore, the petitioner was on leave between 26.1.2000 and 01.3.2000. (iii) The learned counsel heavily relied on the recommendation of Director General of Police dated 18.2.2009 for dropping of charges against the petitioner. (iv) The learned counsel strenuously has contended that no action was taken against the District Collector or the Taluk Supply Officer and the same is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.215, dated 09.11.2005 referred above. 14. The contents of the letter dated 18.2.2000 of Thiru. Krishnamurthy addressed to the Taluk Supply Officer, Kovilpatti to hand over 3935 rice bags is extracted here under: "TAMIL" 15. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has made his submission based on the counter affidavit and sought for dismissal of the petition. 16. I have considered submissions made on either side. 17. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was admittedly on leave between 26.1.2000 to 01.3.2000. The petitioner joined duty, after the expiry of the leave and he continued the investigation. He sent a letter dated 20.3.2000 to the District Collector for confiscation of the seized rice bags. Thiru. Krishnamurthy was in-charge in the place of the petitioner. 17. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was admittedly on leave between 26.1.2000 to 01.3.2000. The petitioner joined duty, after the expiry of the leave and he continued the investigation. He sent a letter dated 20.3.2000 to the District Collector for confiscation of the seized rice bags. Thiru. Krishnamurthy was in-charge in the place of the petitioner. He conducted raid of Annathammal Kasi Modern Rice Mill at Karisalkulam in Kovilpatti Taluk on 18.2.2000 and seized 3935 rice bags from two Godowns of the said rice mill. Thiru. Krishnamurthy handed over those rice bags to the Taluk Supply Officer. 18. According to the respondent, the said report was belated one. In this regard, the relevant portion of paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit is extracted here under: "On 20.03.2000, the petitioner has sent a report to the District Collector, Thoothukudi intimating the fact of seizure of the tender rice and to take necessary action. But the petitioner has failed to send the mandatory report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the District Collector, Thoothukudi in time. The report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was sent by the petitioner only on 12.12.2000 and the petitioner did not send any reminders or met the District Revenue Officer/Collector in person for about 9 months." 19. Therefore, it is necessary to extract Section 6-A (1) and (2) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which reads as follows:- "6A.) Confiscation of essential Commodity. Therefore, it is necessary to extract Section 6-A (1) and (2) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which reads as follows:- "6A.) Confiscation of essential Commodity. [(1) ] Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency- town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector, may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order, [ may order confiscation of-- (a) the essential commodity so seized; (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:] Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section: [Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.] [(2) Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may-- (i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction. 20. 20. The petitioner sent a report dated 20.3.2000 to the District Collector about the seizure of the rice bags. The same is admitted even in the counter affidavit and the same is extracted above. As per Section 6-A (1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the same is sufficient for the District Collector to act further. But the District Collector did not act on the report. In fact, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.215 Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection department, dated 09.11.2005 to initiate action against the District Collector also. Paragraph 6 of the Government Order, in this regard, was extracted above. Admittedly, no action was taken against the District Collector or the Taluk Supply Officer. 21. At this juncture, it is also relevant to extract the recommendation of the Director General of Police made to the Government for dropping the charges in letter dated 18.2.2009 and paragraph 4 of the letter of the Director General of Police is extracted hereunder: "4.) The explanation of both the officers denying the allegations are found to be true. There is no reason to deal them after 8 = years of incident. As no records were maintained in the Mill, there was no possibility of seizing the documents. Thiru. K. Krishnamoorthy seized 3935 bags of rice and handed over to the Taluk Supply Officer under acknowledgement and gave requisition to the Quality Officer on the same day i.e. 18.2.2000. He was holding additional charge of the post of Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Tirunelveli Unit from 30.1.2000 to 1.3.2000 as Inspector of Police Thiru M.Almas Ali was on leave, whose father expired on 26.1.2000. On 1.3.2000 Thiru.K. Krishnamoorthy handed over charge to Thiru M. Almas Ali and he took up further investigation. He received report from Quality Inspector on 10.3.2000 that rice was discolored. On 20.3.2000 he submitted report to the District Collector, Thoothukudi to confiscate the tendered rice handed over to the Taluk Supply Officer. District Collector is the competent authority to confiscate the rice. Hence, the role of both the officers was free from any blame and they performed their duty as required with the power given to them. On 20.3.2000 he submitted report to the District Collector, Thoothukudi to confiscate the tendered rice handed over to the Taluk Supply Officer. District Collector is the competent authority to confiscate the rice. Hence, the role of both the officers was free from any blame and they performed their duty as required with the power given to them. The role of Civil Supplies CID in the confiscation of seized rice is limited to helping the agency to carry out orders issued by the Collector." However, no order was passed on the recommendation of the Director General of Police and the same was also not considered. 22. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of G.O.Ms.No.215, dated 09.11.2005, referred above, Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, action should have been initiated under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. But, admittedly, initiation was not done by the Government under Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and Rule 9-A is extracted hereunder. "Authority Competent to institute disciplinary proceedings where more than one Government servant is involved In any case where more than one Government Servant of the same department are involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 shall be the authority in that Department in respect of the Government servant who holds the highest post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together: Provided that in the case of Government servants belonging to different departments who are jointly involved or whose cases are interconnected, the Government shall be the authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 and in such cases the administrative department of Secretariat in respect of the Government Servant who holds the highest post will initiate such disciplinary proceedings and issue final orders after complying with the entire proceedings laid down in these rules." As per Rule 9-A, the initiation as well as imposition of penalty shall be done by the Government. But Rule 9-A was not followed in this case. 23. But Rule 9-A was not followed in this case. 23. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no reason given for not taking any action against the District Collector or the Taluk Supply Officer when there is a specific reference to the lapse on the part of the District Collector and Taluk Supply Officer. Further, the findings of the respondent and the Enquiry Officer that the charge to the extent that he belatedly sent a report, is totally perverse, particularly when the report of the Director General of Police dated 18.2.2009, which is extracted above, is taken note of. 24. For all the above said reasons, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.