ORDER : B. Rajendran, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect imposed on him by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner was recruited by direct recruitment in December 1987, to the first respondent as Executive Officer Grade-I and he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner on 30.06.1995 and thereafter promoted as Deputy Commissioner and posted as Joint Commissioner for the Chennai Region. 3. The Government of Tamil Nadu made an announcement during the budget-session for the financial year 2011-12, to arrange a marriage ceremony for 1006 Hindu couples belonging to economically and socially weaker section of the society hailing from different parts of the State. 4. The second respondent vide reference dated 18.10.2011 and 03.11.2011 issued prescribed format of application. The petitioner and similar Joint Commissioners were required to at least select and send 100 couples. The couples should hail from economically backward sector and due authentication for that fact through the necessary officers such as the Executive Officers of the Temples from their particular division to participate in the mass marriage ceremony is necessary. A certificate in the prescribed format shall be issued by the Village Administrative Officer of the respective area, after due verification, to the effect that it will be the first marriage of the couples selected for the mass marriage ceremony and that the information given by them in the application form are correct. The petitioner and similar officers were required to ensure that the couples and their applications were verified by the Village Administrative Officer and Police and the necessary certificates and reports to that effect are annexed along with the application. The marriage ceremony was conducted on 18.6.2012. 5. On the basis of certain allegations raised in the article, by a Tamil Weekly 'Nakeeran', the respondent department has sought explanation from various Divisional Joint Commissioners in relation to the anomalies associated with the couples hailing from their respective divisions. In relation to the petitioner's division the allegation was pertaining to 2 couples, having children, being permitted to participate in the function. Upon Inquiry, it was confessed by the two couples that they did indeed have a child each and the children of the couples were aged about 10 months and 1½ years respectively. 6. In relation to the petitioner's division the allegation was pertaining to 2 couples, having children, being permitted to participate in the function. Upon Inquiry, it was confessed by the two couples that they did indeed have a child each and the children of the couples were aged about 10 months and 1½ years respectively. 6. The first respondent vide a communication dated 24.6.2012, directed the petitioner to submit details in relation to the process and officers involved in processing of the above mentioned two couples. The petitioner immediately submitted a written representation on the same day. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a notification dated 29.6.2012 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation with Section 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 9.7.2012, a charge memo comprising of two charges were issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 14.8.2012 to the second respondent. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry, submitted his enquiry report on 28.9.2012 holding that since the function was presided over by the Head of the State, the petitioner ought to have acted with extra care and attention in realising the alleged discrepancy in signature and therefore, found the charges to be proved against him. 7. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent vide letter dated 1.11.2012 forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and sought explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.11.2012. Despite the petitioner submitting a representation no action was taken by the respondents in this regard. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.02.2013 requesting the first respondent to take appropriate steps to revoke the suspension. Despite the representation, no action was taken by the respondent. The petitioner has therefore filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26228 of 2014 seeking to quash the charge memo and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 15.12.2014 with a direction to the respondents to pass final order within a period of 8 weeks. Accordingly, the first Respondent passed an order in G.O. (B) No.10, dated 13.01.2015 imposing penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed against him, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present writ petition. Accordingly, the first Respondent passed an order in G.O. (B) No.10, dated 13.01.2015 imposing penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed against him, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present writ petition. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up. 8. The first respondent in their counter affidavit would contend that the petitioner should have enquired the couples properly before finalising the list. The Inquiry officer has observed that the petitioner has failed to act diligently which is prejudicial to the reputation of the Government. If he had acted diligently, the couples having children could have been prevented from participating in the marriage function. The petitioner was given full opportunity in the Departmental proceedings to defend himself. The findings of the Inquiry Officer was sent to the petitioner to submit his further representation. By considering all the above, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on material evidence. Hence, interference of this Court is not required. 9. I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Joint Commissioner during the relevant period and he was given the task of selecting eligible couples for conduct of mass marriage on 18.6.2012 in an auspicious manner. The Joint Commissioners were instructed to interview the couples in person before finalising the list. The object underlying the scheme of the Government is that the married couples were not eligible and it was strictly instructed to verify whether it will be their first marriage. It was also instructed to verify the authenticity of information furnished by the couples through the Village Administrative Officer and Police Department. The communication of the Commissioner to Joint Commissioners in Letter Na. Ka. No. 38497/12/K.2/ dated 11.06.2012 reads as follows:- Xxxx 10. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the selection process has to be done only by the Village Administrative Officer and it has to be verified by the Inspector of Police in the concerned police station. The communication of the Commissioner to Joint Commissioners in Letter Na. Ka. No. 38497/12/K.2/ dated 11.06.2012 reads as follows:- Xxxx 10. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the selection process has to be done only by the Village Administrative Officer and it has to be verified by the Inspector of Police in the concerned police station. Relying upon the report filed by the Enquiry Officer, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the findings of the Enquiry Officer, wherein, he has stated that Mr. Nagarajan, Village Administrative Officer, has issued certificates to two couples by name T. Vijayan and U. Kalaiarasi and K. Manikandan and M. Saraswathi certifying that the information given by them in the front page of their application are all true and it is the first marriage between them. Similarly, the Inspector of Police (L & O), J-1 Saidapet Police Station has given certificates to the two couples by name T. Vijayan and U. Kalaiarasi, and K. Manikandan and M.Saraswathi stating that on enquiry he came to know that there was no adverse remarks against the said couples and that their proposed marriage is the first marriage with the consent of their parents. 11. According to the Enquiry Officer, in the applications under Exhibit-P2 series the brides instead of giving their initials from the first letter of their father's name, as it was prior to their marriage, have given their initials from the first letter of the bridegroom's name who got married on that day only and was living with their begotten children and if the petitioner has scrutinised the applications of the said couple with due care and diligence he could have find out the said defects. On that ground he came to the conclusion that Charge No.1 is proved. 12. On that ground he came to the conclusion that Charge No.1 is proved. 12. But as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the application at page No.118 of the typed set name of the Bridegroom has been given as K. Manikandan S/o Kuppan and the Bride name has been given as A. Saraswathy D/o Annadurai and the Bride put her signature as A. Saraswathy, putting her initial as A and not as M. Similarly, the application of the other couple at page No.102 of the typed set name of the Bridegroom has been given as T. Vijayan and the name of the Bride has been given as U. Kalaiarasi D/o Uthiranathan. The Enquiry Officer in his findings has stated that U looks like V, cannot be correct, she has clearly signed as U. Kalairasi. Therefore, even on that ground the Enquiry Officer could not have come to the said conclusion. 13. No doubt, this Court is not sitting on appeal as against the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. However, this Court is empowered to interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority if there is error apparent on the face of the records. In the case on hand this Court definitely look into the said aspect particularly the findings of the Enquiry Officer which reads as follows:- XXX Xxxx Xxxx 14. From the above findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is very clear that the petitioner is not responsible for all these things. But the only finding against the petitioner is he should have exercised more diligence while selecting the couples. Therefore, he has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be accepted as it is not in accordance with law, coupled with the fact that the direction of the Commissioner is only to the effect that he should verify on the selection made by the Village Administrative Officer and the Inspector of Police which has been properly done and given to him. Therefore, he has believed that the selection made by the Village Administrative Officer and the Inspector of Police are perfect. Therefore, individually he cannot be blamed for the alleged discrepancy in the selection of couples. Therefore, he has believed that the selection made by the Village Administrative Officer and the Inspector of Police are perfect. Therefore, individually he cannot be blamed for the alleged discrepancy in the selection of couples. If at all the selection made by the Village Administrative Officer and the Inspector of Police, they may be held responsible and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for them. 15. In fact, the Enquiry Officer in his findings at page No.78 has stated as follows: Xxxx 16. From the above findings, it is very clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence. That being the findings of the Inquiry Officer, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, he has recommended to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing punishment. 17. In the impugned order the first respondent has extracted the further explanation given by the petitioner which reads as follows:- Xxxx Xxxx Xxxx 18. In this background when we look at the impugned order till the entire extracts have been made out and finally the order is as given below:- Xxxx 19. The impugned order of punishment passed by the first respondent/Disciplinary Authority does not give any reason. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in [2008] 16 VST 181 (SC), Steel Authority of India Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others, reasons are the heart beat of any conclusion. As mentioned above, in the impugned order of punishment, no reason much less valid reason has been assigned by the first respondent. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.