JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned Government Order in G.O.(2d) No.657, dated 10.11.2008, issued by the first respondent and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief fact of the case follows: The petitioner who worked as HC 358, Railway Police, Trichy, formerly HC 309 of Karur District, was issued a Charge under Rule 3(b) in PR No.10/A4/2006 by the second respondent. The Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 07.02.2006 containing 5 articles of charges in respect of certain occurrences dating back to September-November 2001. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, dated 10.03.2007 denying the said charge. 3(i) The Superintendent of Police was nominated as Enquiry Officer and he submitted a report stating that all the charges were proved. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by the first respondent along with their communication, dated 20.09.2007. Hence, the petitioner submitted a further representation on 30.10.2007. However, the first respondent passed an impugned Government Order in G.O.(2d) No.657, dated 10.11.2008, by accepting the enquiry report and also imposed a punishment with stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred this Writ petition. 4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's representation, dated 30.10.2007 submitted by the petitioner in response to the enquiry report forwarded to him by the first respondent, on 20.09.2007. Further, he submitted that just by accepting the enquiry report and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order and he demonstrated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered. Hence, he has also relied upon a Judgment of this Court in the case of Principal Sec to the Govt. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order and he demonstrated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered. Hence, he has also relied upon a Judgment of this Court in the case of Principal Sec to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu V J.Joseph Vaz, reported in (2 MLJ 641), wherein this Court has held that the disciplinary Authority has failed to consider the material points and simply agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. Hence, this Court can make an interference in this case. 6. I am of the considered view that the impugned order was passed by the first respondent, just by accepting the report of the enquiry officer and without considering the petitioner's representation, though the petitioner submitted his representation, dated 30.10.2007. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. 7. Hence, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned Government Order in G.O.(2d) No.657, dated 10.11.2008, passed by the first respondent is set aside and remitted back to the first respondent with a direction to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dated 30.10.2007 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.