JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents Rc No.185600/API(2)/2009 dated 19.02.2010 and D.O.556/09,C.No.D2/PR No.28/2008 dated 29.05.2009 respectively and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition is filed praying for a Writ of certiorari challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents vide order dated 29.05.2009 and 19.02.2010 respectively. 2. Brief Facts: The petitioner was directly recruited to Grade-II Police Constable in the Cuddalore District Armed Reserve on October 1984. After a series of upgradation while working as Head Constable attached to Varanjaram Police Station he was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 15.09.2008 for having violated Rule 8(1)(2) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officer Conduct Rules, 1964. It was alleged that the petitioner was involved in lending money for interest after getting signature of the borrowers in empty bond papers and threatening them. After a preliminary enquiry the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &Appeal) Rules, 1955 in Na.Ka.No.D2/Pr 28/08 dated 06.11.2008 containing as many as four charges viz., a. That after obtaining signature from one Elango in blank paper extended loan of an amount of Rs.30,000/-, though the same was re-paid in two installments of Rs.15,000/- each the petitioner had threatened the said Elango and his father Sarangapani by engaging henchman. b. That after obtaining signature from one Govindaraj in blank paper extended loan of an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, though Govindaraj had returned/re-paid the amount with interest to the tune of Rs.42,000/- the petitioner refused to return the documents and insisted to pay an additional sum of Rs.22,000/- and on 20.03.2008 threatened to kill him. c. That the act of the petitioner of lending money for interest to Elango and Govindaraj  constitutes violation of Rule 8(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officer Conduct Rules, 1964. d. That on 24.03.2008 the petitioner had snatched a sum of Rs.35,000/- from one Ramesh Babu who owed him money and handed over the same to his wife. The above conduct/act constitutes grave misconduct. 3. d. That on 24.03.2008 the petitioner had snatched a sum of Rs.35,000/- from one Ramesh Babu who owed him money and handed over the same to his wife. The above conduct/act constitutes grave misconduct. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation denying all the charges and stating that the proceeding is motivated and ill advised. It may be relevant to state that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 29.11.2008, requesting to furnish copies of the prosecution documents noted in Annexure-3 of the charge memo but the same was not furnished to enable him to prepare himself for the cross examination. Without furnishing copies of the said documents, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner's request for copies of the documents was denied and the enquiry was proceeded with. The Respondents would submit that oral enquiry was conducted and on the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked and delinquent has cross examined the prosecution witnesses. 4. Thereafter, in the Enquiry Report dated 18.01.2009 it was stated that the charges against the petitioner has been proved and copies of the same was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and the copy of the Enquiry Officer Report was furnished to the petitioner on 30.01.2009 and he was directed to submit his further explanation. 5. The petitioner submitted his further explanation on 24.02.2009. The Disciplinary Authority vide impugned proceedings dated 29.05.2009, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Report and held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and imposed the punishment of postponement of his next increment for 2 years and this shall operate to postpone his future increments. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Review petition before the 2nd Respondent on 28.10.2009 to cancel the punishment. The 2nd Respondent instead of considering the merits of the charges, agreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the same vide order dated 19.02.2010, without applying his mind to the merits. 7. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the Disciplinary proceedings dated 29.05.2009 and the order of the Review Petition dated 19.02.2010. 8. Case of the petitioner: a. It is submitted that the impugned orders are non-speaking order and bereft of details. 7. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the Disciplinary proceedings dated 29.05.2009 and the order of the Review Petition dated 19.02.2010. 8. Case of the petitioner: a. It is submitted that the impugned orders are non-speaking order and bereft of details. b. The prosecution documents in Annexure-III have not been furnished to the petitioner, thereby denying the petitioner the opportunity to effectively defend his case. c. The impugned order has been made by the 1st Respondent without taking into account the petitioner's representation in response to the enquiry report. d. The order of the 1st Respondent in the Review Application is equally bad inasmuch as it has assigned no reasons other than merely affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 9. To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner received copies of the prosecution documents on 01.12.2008 and without preferring an appeal the petitioner has chosen to file the Review Petition which is rightly rejected vide proceedings dated 19.02.2010 after considering the merits of the charges and the entire evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was very lenient only in view of the fact that this is the first delinquency although the charges were severe in nature. 10. A perusal of the impugned orders dated 29.05.2009 and 19.10.2010 would reveal that both the orders suffer from the vice of being non-speaking as it does not assign any reason other than merely setting out the submissions. It is trite law that any order which has consequences must be in conformity with principles of natural justice. This court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that the order is not a speaking order. The same is thus set aside with direction to the 2nd Respondent to pass orders afresh after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard within a period of 12 weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of on above terms. No costs.