Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner was an Inspector of Police at Ambattur Police Station at the relevant point of time. He was issued with a charge memo dated 19.07.2000 in P.R.No.164 of 2000 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6533 of 2001 and questioned the aforesaid charge memo and obtained interim order on 06.07.2001. 4. While so, the said charge memo was withdrawn on 29.04.2001. The same is not in dispute and admitted in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with another charge memo dated 29.04.2001 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules containing the same allegations. He pleaded categorically in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support this petition that challenging the said charge memo dated 29.04.2001, he filed O.A.No.74 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal granted stay of further proceeding on 04.01.2002. 6. Even before communicating the said order of stay, the impugned punishment order signed on 30.01.2002 was served on the petitioner on 03.06.2002. The same is also pleaded in ground (a) of the affidavit filed in support of this petition. 7. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent, the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner that the respondent proceeded to impose the punishment while there was a stay of further proceeding pursuant to the charge memo dated 29.04.2001 was not denied specifically. 8. Likewise, when the petitioner has categorically stated in ground (a) that though the impugned order was signed on 30.01.2002, the same was served on him only 30.06.2002, the said averment was also not disputed. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed based on the report of the enquiry that was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and the said report was relied on to impose the punishment. Though, according to him, it is not necessary to conduct an enquiry in the case of the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, if enquiry was conducted and a report against the delinquent is relied on by the disciplinary authority, the same shall be served on the petitioner and his views shall be obtained before imposing the punishment. 10. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also held by this Court in Nawabkhan V. Superintendent of Police, reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 1175 that in the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is analogous to the proceeding under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, if enquiry is held and the adverse enquiry report is relied on to impose the punishment, the same shall be furnished and the views of the delinquent shall be obtained. 11. He took me through the punishment order, wherein, it is stated that the punishment order is passed based on the findings of the enquiry. 12. Hence, I am in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the imposition of punishment without furnishing the copy of the findings to the petitioner is bad. 13. It is relevant to extract the punishment order in this regard : “I have carefully gone through the explanation of the delinquent along with the P.R. File and connected records. I agree with the findings of the Minute drawing officer, who has drawn up a proved Minute after considering all the points raised by the delinquent in his explanation. Hence, I award him the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, from the date of this order.” 14. The above said extract makes it clear that the impugned order is bad, since it is based on the finding in the enquiry report, while the same was not furnished to the petitioner and his views were not obtained before imposing the punishment. 15. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed, while there was an interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.74 of 2002 on 04.01.2002. This categorical pleading made by the petitioner was not denied specifically in this regard by the respondent. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the punishment order of the respondent in P.R. No.164/2000, dated 30.01.2002, which was served on the petitioner on 30.06.2002 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.