Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for three years. 2. Though counter is not filed in this case, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, since the issue involved in this case lies on a narrow campus. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Road Gangman and upgraded as Fitter. Further, he was promoted as Junior Engineer (in-charge) on 01.01.2011. On 24.08.2012, he was placed under suspension on the ground that an enquiry into grave charge was contemplated. Thereafter, a charge memo, dated 14.09.2012 was issued against the petitioner alleging that he countersigned in the vouchers for painting work and ramp facility without having any file or M. Book, thereby causing a loss to the tune of Rs.81,589/-. The petitioner gave a detailed explanation denying the charges. He specifically stated that the signatures found in the file is not that of himself. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted the enquiry report on 27.05.2013 stating that in order to ascertain the facts as to whether the signature found in the file is that of the petitioner, the same has to be sent for Forensic Department, for verification. However, the first respondent passed an order of punishment based on the said report given by the enquiry officer, without referring the disputed signature to the Forensic Department for verification, as required by the enquiry officer. Thus, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer has not categorically found that the charge is proved against the petitioner and on the other hand, he only wanted the disputed signatures found in the file to be referred to the Forensic Department, for verification in order to ascertain its genuineness. Thus he submitted that when that being the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the enquiry officer has only sought for referring the disputed signature to the Forensic Department and therefore, the impugned order ought not to have passed without referring the disputed signature for Forensic Department and getting report there on. 6. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the enquiry officer has only sought for referring the disputed signature to the Forensic Department and therefore, the impugned order ought not to have passed without referring the disputed signature for Forensic Department and getting report there on. 6. A perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, dated 14.09.2012 would show that the enquiry officer has not concluded the enquiry and given a finding as to whether the charge against the petitioner has been proved or not. On the other hand, in the penultimate paragraph, he has observed as follows:- (“TAMIL”) 7. When that being the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the first respondent has passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for three years as if the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. 8. The relevant portion of the order impugned reads as follows:- (“TAMIL”) 9. From the perusal of the above order passed by the first respondent, it would disclose that the disciplinary authority himself has given a finding as though the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved, when the enquiry officer has not given any such finding and on the other hand, he only sought for referring the signature to the Forensic Department. Therefore, I find every justification in setting aside the order of punishment and remitting the matter back to the first respondent to proceed from the stage of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, dated 14.09.2012. Needless to say that the first respondent has to refer the disputed signatures of the petitioner in the relevant file, to the Forensic Department with his admitted signature and get a report and thereafter furnish the same to the enquiry officer to file his final report in the enquiry. After getting the final report from the enquiry officer, the first respondent is at liberty to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. All the above exercises shall be done by the first respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.