ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 367/2012; whereby, the challenge to an order dated 26.2.2003 has been negatived. 3. That, by order dated 26.2.2003, the petitioner was visited with the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, with non-cumulative effect under rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 4. The punishment as is borne out from the record preceded with the charge memorandum dated 12.12.2002 on the allegation that the petitioner had used abusive and filthy language with Senior Auditor in his chamber and physically assaulted him. The petitioner submitted the reply and denied the factual allegation made in charge-sheet. The authority concerned, without holding any inquiry in the said factual aspect, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and inflicted for impugned penalty. 5. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that though he was served a show cause notice for a minor penalty, however, having denied the factual aspects adverted to in the show cause notice, incumbent it was upon the respondents to have conducted an enquiry into those facts and after affording opportunity of hearing, the order ought to have been passed. 6. The submission did not find favour with the Tribunal which held: “6. From bare reading of the Honb'le High Court it is manifestly clear that the Hon'ble High Court did not approve the manner in which minor punishment was imposed upon the applicant by a non-speaking order without discussing the evidence, which persuaded the disciplinary authority to record a finding that the misconduct alleged against the applicant stands proved. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the order of punishment with liberty to the disciplinary authority to act in accordance with law. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that applicant was served with a charge sheet under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, on the allegation that while working as Senior Auditor in the office of Principal Accountant General, he remained absent in the afternoon of 12.9.2002, and therefore he was shown as on leave. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that applicant was served with a charge sheet under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, on the allegation that while working as Senior Auditor in the office of Principal Accountant General, he remained absent in the afternoon of 12.9.2002, and therefore he was shown as on leave. Infuriated by the above, the applicant misbehaved, filthily abused, and physically manhandled Shri O. P. Wadhwani, Senior AO (Commercial) on 16.9.2002. The applicant submitted reply to the charge sheet and denied the charges as baseless and misleading, without assigning any reason. He did not specifically request for holding an enquiry. He was duly served with imputation of misconduct along with the charge sheet, on which the action was proposed to be taken. The disciplinary authority, considering that the applicant did not offer any reply/representation on the specific charges detailed in the imputation of misconduct, and further considering that the applicant was shown as on leave on 12.9.2002 (AN) by Shri O. P. Wadhwani in the attendance register for the month of September, 2002, and that the applicant did not sign the attendance register in the afternoon session on 12.9.2002, or gave any written representation to the branch officer/group officer against the marking of 'L' in attendance register, held that the applicant was not present in the post-lunch session on 12.9.2002, and accordingly held that the charge levelled against the applicant in the charge sheet dated 12.12.2002, issued to him under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as proved. 8. We also take note of the fact that the disciplinary authority has imposed the minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of two years, without any cumulative effect, which has been subsequently modified and reduced to withholding of one increment for a period of six months by the appellate authority. In our considered opinion, the disciplinary authority has imposed the aforesaid punishment by assigning sufficient reason before imposing the minor penalty which has been substantially reduced by the appellate authority.” 7. It being a matter of record that the charges framed against the petitioner were that of using filthy language and of beating a superior officer, which were denied by the petitioner, incumbent it was upon the competent authority to have caused an enuqiry to establish the charges. 8. In O. K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India & Ors. It being a matter of record that the charges framed against the petitioner were that of using filthy language and of beating a superior officer, which were denied by the petitioner, incumbent it was upon the competent authority to have caused an enuqiry to establish the charges. 8. In O. K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2001) 9 SCC 180 ], wherein it is held: “3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect” is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty, an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispnsed with. (emphasis supplied) 9. The case at hand also frescoes similar fact situation as was existing in O. K. Bharadwaj(supra), wherein the charges related to the factual aspects were denied by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 26.2.2003, whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of stoppage of one annual increments with non-cumulative effect. The order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 367/2012 when tested on the anvil of above analysis and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O. K. Bharadwaj (supra) cannot be approved of. 10. Consequentially, the order dated 26.2.2003 and order dated 11.3.2014 passed in Original Application No. 367/2012 are set aside. The matter is relegated to the disciplinary authority to cause an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner and further, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, pass a fresh order. The said be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 11. The petition stands disposed of finally in the above terms. 12. No costs.