Judgment :- 1. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondents-1 & 2. Mr. P. Gunasekaran, learned Counsel takes notice for the third respondent and Mr. T.R. Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the fourth respondent and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-1 & 2, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memo of second respondent in Memorandum No. Inspection.1/49546 /2008 dated 18.3.2010 and impugned punishment order of the first respondent in G.O(D)No.8 dated 07.01.2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to promote the petitioner herein as Deputy Director of Employment Exchange with seniority, increment and arrears of salary and all other monetary benefits on par with his juniors. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of punishment imposed by the first respondent through G.O(D).No. 8, Labour & Employment(N1) Department dated 07.01.2015. It is seen that the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, on 18.3.2010. The petitioner gave his explanation and denied the charge. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer, who in turn filed his Enquiry report. The petitioner on being served with the Enquiry report, made his further explanation disputing the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the present impugned order is passed imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Though this Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order by raising very many grounds on merits, this Court is convinced to interfere with the impugned order only on the ground that the same came to be passed without assigning any independent finding and reasoning of the disciplinary authority and therefore, the same is an out come of the non-application of mind. 5. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that after extracting the charge memo, the explanation given by the petitioner for the said charge memo and the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent has only made the following observations at para-3, and imposed the order of punishment:- “TAMIL” A perusal of the above said observations of the first respondent, would show that except stating that the first respondent has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, no independent reasoning or finding has been given by the first respondent to arrive at such conclusion. Therefore, I am of the view that, such kind of order passed by the disciplinary authority, that too imposing the major punishment can not be sustained. Therefore, this court is of the view, that the first respondent has to pass a reasoned order. 6. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a speaking order with an independent findings and the reasonings, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear, that this court is not expressing any view on the merits and the claim made by the petitioner against the punishment. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.