ORDER : This Writ Petition is directed against the non-speaking order passed by the first respondent dated 23 April, 2010, modifying the order passed by the second respondent dated 13 January, 2006, whereby and whereunder, punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of four years was converted into one of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. BACKGROUND: 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector in Local Fund Audit Department. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Director. 3. The petitioner married a woman belonging to Most Backward Class Community. In the said marriage, a son and two daughters were born to him. His wife applied for Most Backward Class Community Certificates to the children. The Certificates issued by the revenue authority were, subsequently, cancelled by the District Vigilance Committee, pursuant to the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. The order was upheld by the State Level Vigilance Committee. 4. Thereafter, the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that he obtained Most Backward Class Community Certificates to his children by suppressing the actual community status. The disciplinary authority finally imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of four years. The appeal filed by the petitioner was treated as a review petition by the first respondent. The first respondent modified the punishment into one of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of three years. The order passed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent order passed by the Government are the subject matters in this Writ Petition. 5. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit justifying the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the ultimate order passed by the Government. 6. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. DISCUSSION: 7. The documents available on record indicate that it was only the wife of the petitioner who submitted applications for Community Certificates to the children. The Community Certificates indicating Most Backward status were issued on the basis of documents produced by her and the sworn statement of her parents. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. The documents available on record indicate that it was only the wife of the petitioner who submitted applications for Community Certificates to the children. The Community Certificates indicating Most Backward status were issued on the basis of documents produced by her and the sworn statement of her parents. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice to the petitioner and his wife and thereafter, submitted a report to the District Vigilance Committee. The District Vigilance Committee accepted the report and cancelled the Certificates. The order was upheld by the appellate authority. The disciplinary authority has given certain reasons for imposing the punishment in question. However, the fact remains that no enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority by examining witnesses to prove the allegations made against the petitioner. The report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti to the District Vigilance Committee was taken as a piece of material to decide the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Even the Revenue Divisional Officer was not examined to mark the report. 8. The appellate authority considered the appeal filed by the petitioner as a review petition and passed a non-speaking order. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner contended that the applications were submitted only by his wife for Community Certificates. The wife of the petitioner claimed that she belongs to Most Backward Class Community. She has her own reasons for making such a claim. The Revenue Divisional Officer disbelieved the documents produced by her and arrived at a factual finding that the Certificates were obtained fraudulently. The appellate authority failed to consider the material fact as to whether a finding recorded against the wife of the petitioner would constitute a valid material to impose punishment on the petitioner. It is also a matter of record that except the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the order passed by the District Vigilance Committee, there were no other materials before the disciplinary authority to arrive at a factual finding that the charges framed against the petitioner were all proved. In a matter like this, both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority must consider as to whether the petitioner was instrumental in making applications for Community Certificates with a false claim. However, no such effort was taken by the authorities. 9. In a matter like this, both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority must consider as to whether the petitioner was instrumental in making applications for Community Certificates with a false claim. However, no such effort was taken by the authorities. 9. Even though the petitioner submitted an appeal, it was considered only as a review petition. The review petition before the first respondent was a statutory review. The appellate authority, unfortunately, failed to give any reason much less justifiable reason to confirm the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the ultimate punishment imposed on him. 10. The order passed by the authorities must contain reasons. The first respondent, without giving reasons, simply modified the punishment. Since the order is bereft of reasons, I am of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the first respondent. 11. In the result, the order dated 23 April, 2010, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to consider the entire factual matrix and take a decision one way or the other on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.