Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Proc.No.33124/ESTT. (D.P)/A1/2010, dated 28.10.2011 and the impugned order of the second respondent passed in Proc.No.63433/ESTT.(D.P)/A4/2009, dated 28.05.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to pay all the retirement benefits due to the petitioner with interest from the date of his retirement till realisation. 2. According to the petitioner, he entered into the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board as a Junior Engineer on 26.08.1976 and the same was re-designated as Assistant Engineer in the year 1978. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 20.11.1987 and again, promoted as Executive Engineer during March 2006 and he attained superannuation on 31.05.2010. While so, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner ad a charge memo was issued to him on 14.12.2009 and the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and arrived at a conclusion that all the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. However, the second respondent invoked the suo motu power conferred on him and by the proceedings of the second respondent, it is stated that the disciplinary authority, viz., the first respondent has disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer insofar as the charge Nos.2 and 3 and ultimately, the second respondent imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, by his order dated 28.05.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 21.06.2010. Since the said appeal was pending for a long time, he filed W.P(MD) No.12944 of 2010 before this Court and a direction was also issued to dispose of the appeal within twelve weeks thereon. The said appeal was placed before the Board along with the recommendations of the Appeal Sub Committee held on 26.08.2011 and by virtue of the Board's Resolution dated 26.08.2011, the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage at which the personal hearing is required to be given to the petitioner. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit, among other things, contended that the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, but, the disciplinary authority had not accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge Nos.2 and 3 and after considering all the materials including the reply of the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service, as against which, the appeal was filed by the petitioner and in the said appeal, the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority for affording personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the charges were held to be proved and the dismissal order came to be passed and therefore, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any irregularities as alleged in the charge memo and the Enquiry Officer has rightly arrived at a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner, were not proved, however, the disciplinary authority, has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and subsequently, he filed an appeal to the first respondent, who has not considered the case of the petitioner, but, without considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, he also rejected the plea of the petitioner. Further, he contended that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed two days before his superannuation, which would clearly show the mala fide attributed on the part of the respondents. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 5. Further, he contended that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed two days before his superannuation, which would clearly show the mala fide attributed on the part of the respondents. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner were not proved, the disciplinary authority, by his suo motu powers, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was considered and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority only to provide personal hearing to the petitioner so as to avoid the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice and only after taking into consideration the materials in oral and documentary in detail, including the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, the dismissal order came to be passed and moreover, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can file a review challenging the order passed in the appeal and therefore, the impugned orders need not be interfered with by this Court and accordingly, she prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry after issuance of the charge memo as against the petitioner alleging certain irregularities committed by the petitioner in payment towards supply of pump-sets and after enquiry, those charges were held as not proved insofar as the Enquiry Officer is concerned. However, by invoking the suo motu power, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner, as against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. 8. A perusal of the orders impugned would make it clear that the appellate authority had reproduced in verbatim the charges as well as the reply and even without considering the detailed reply, passed an order, which, in the opinion of this Court, is a non-speaking order. It is seen that the first respondent, without application of mind, has passed the impugned order, by simply reproducing the order of the disciplinary authority. On that score alone, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. It is seen that the first respondent, without application of mind, has passed the impugned order, by simply reproducing the order of the disciplinary authority. On that score alone, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration as per law. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.