JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ku.Aa.No.016743/701/nipi4/vu1/2012-16 dated 31.08.2016 and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ku.Aa.No. 006951/194/NiPi/C-1/Ko.ONa/2017-1 dated 16.09.2017 and quash the same.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 31.08.2016 in Ku.Aa.No.016743/701/nipi4/vu1/2012-16 and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ku.Aa.No.006951/194/NiPi/C-1/Ko.ONa/2017-1 dated 16.09.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, originally who filed this petition, was initially appointed as Junior Engineer Grade-I in the year 2002. When he was working as Junior Engineer Grade-I, a charge memo dated 18.02.2013 was issued leveling six charges against him. He submitted detailed explanation on 16.07.2013 and the third respondent was appointed as enquiry officer and he conducted elaborate enquiry on various dates. Thereafter, the third respondent submitted his enquiry report stating that the six charges attributed against the delinquent were not proved. Without accepting the enquiry report, the second respondent once again ordered for denova enquiry for the very same set of allegations and appointed the fourth respondent as enquiry officer. Thereafter, the delinquent submitted his explanation and participated in the enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent submitted his report stating that out of six charges, four charges were proved. Aggrieved over the same, the delinquent preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 17.09.2016. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 confirming the order passed by the second respondent and the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was confirmed by the first respondent. 3. The contention of the delinquent is that in the first enquiry report, the second respondent has not adduced proper reason for denova enquiry. The second contention is that the allegation against the petitioner is that there is discrepancy in the work orders, which were handed over by the delinquent. The respondents should have called for explanation within 90 days from the date of handing over the charges. Whereas, the second respondent issued a charge memo after lapse of two years. The second contention is that the allegation against the petitioner is that there is discrepancy in the work orders, which were handed over by the delinquent. The respondents should have called for explanation within 90 days from the date of handing over the charges. Whereas, the second respondent issued a charge memo after lapse of two years. The third contention raised by the delinquent is that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is a cryptic and non-speaking order. Therefore, the delinquent claims that the impugned order should be set aside and the delinquent's name should be considered for promotion. 4. The respondents have not filed any counter, but relying on the enquiry officer report and the proceedings of the authorities have made his submission. 5. Pending this writ petition, the delinquent died on 29.05.2021 and the legal heirs of the delinquent have filed an impleading petition in W.M.P.(MD).No.15666 of 2021 and the said petition is allowed and are impleaded as legal heirs of the delinquent. 6. Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.Arivalagan the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 7. The contention of the petitioners is that the third respondent has conducted first enquiry and in the first enquiry report, the enquiry officer has stated that the charges are not proved. The respondents have every power to deviate from the enquiry report and order another enquiry but, the respondent should state the reason for deviating from the said report. In the present case the respondents have not adduced any reasons for not accepting the first enquiry report and has not not stated any reasons for deviating from the report. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 31.08.2016, it is seen that the second respondent has not stated any reason at all and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary authority has every power, either to accept or to deviate from the enquiry report. If the disciplinary authority is intended to deviate, then he is supposed to give reason for deviation. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has not spelled out any reason at all. It only states that the enquiry report is not acceptable. 10. If the disciplinary authority is intended to deviate, then he is supposed to give reason for deviation. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has not spelled out any reason at all. It only states that the enquiry report is not acceptable. 10. In the enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent, it is stated that out of six charges, two charges were not proved and four charges were proved. The second respondent has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Since the delinquent died, the legal heirs are contesting the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order for the above said reasons. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ku.Aa.No.016743/701/nipi4/vu1/2012-16 dated 31.08.2016 and consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ku.Aa.No. 006951/194/NiPi/C-1/Ko.ONa/2017-1 dated 16.09.2017 is also set aside. The monetary benefits shall be calculated and disburse the benefits to the legal heirs of the delinquent, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.