JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order made in Na.Ka.No.7065/2010/A1 dated 21.10.2010 passed by the third respondent and consequential order made in Na.Ka.No.38442/2010/Q3 dated 18.05.2011 passed by the second respondent and the order made in G.O.(2D) No.01, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-2) Department, dated 02.01.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.) 1. The order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was working as Accountant in the 'A' Section of the Sub Treasury Office at Salem. One of his duty is passing of bills received from various Departments, including the Department of School Education. On 05.04.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., the petitioner received 53 bills in which 49 bills were passed and due to some defects, 4 bills could not be passed. The said 4 bills were presented by the Head Master, Municipal Boys Higher Secondary School, Ammapet, Salem such as (1) bill for special welfare fund for retired teachers, (2) salary bill for teachers and office staff for the month of March 2010, (3) salary bill for computer teachers for the month of March 2010 and (4) salary bill for the payment of arrears for retired teachers, in which, one bill was returned and the same was received by the said Head Master on 05.04.2010. The other 3 bills could not be passed due to some defects. 3. The Headmaster of the said School submitted a complaint to the Treasury Officer, who in turn issued a charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The writ petitioner had submitted his explanations setting out the facts and details and elaborate that he was not responsible for any such delay and he was holding the said post for one day and for the next 3 days he was on leave to attend the TNPSC Examination. Therefore, he is not responsible for any delay. 4. The District Treasury Officer sought for a report from the Sub Treasury Office, Salem. The Sub Treasury Officer, Salem submitted a report in proceedings dated 23.04.2010. Therefore, he is not responsible for any delay. 4. The District Treasury Officer sought for a report from the Sub Treasury Office, Salem. The Sub Treasury Officer, Salem submitted a report in proceedings dated 23.04.2010. the said report of the Sub Treasury Officer reveals that there was no delay on the part of the writ petitioner in passing the bill and absolutely there was no delay on the part of the Sub-Treasury, Salem. 5. The facts and circumstances narrated by the Sub Treasury Office, Salem in his report dated 23.04.2010 reveals that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any such delay or otherwise and he was performing his duty without any lapses. It is relevant to extract the said portion of the report, which reads as under:- 6. In spite of the report submitted by the Sub Treasury Office, Salem, the Treasury Officer imposed penalty of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect. This Court is of the considered opinion that the procedures contemplated for conducting an enquiry under Rule 17(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, is summary in nature and in the present case, the District Treasury Officer sought for a report from the Sub Treasury Officer, who in turn submitted a report and the said report reveals that there is no lapses on the part of the writ petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the said report for the purpose of accepting the explanations. 7. This being the factum established, the order of punishment issued by the third respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7065/2010/A1 dated 21.10.2010 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.