JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Government order made in G.O.(D) No.7 Housing and Urban Development (Na.Va.2(1)) Department dated 08.1.2014 issued by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, the first respondent herein in confirming the proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, the second respondent herein made in Roc.No.14064/2010/K1 dated 10.12.2010, quash both the orders and direct the respondents herein to disburse all the consequential service and monetary benefits which have been withheld on account of the above penalty including promotion and disburse all the arrears accurred on all the heads within a short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. The order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Director / Member Secretary (incharge) at Coimbatore, one Mrs.Rajammal and others filed an application for Planning approval of their existing buildings additional works and for alteration of building in the year 2008. The said application was processed and returned. The said applicant filed an appeal to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and the Director scrutinized the processes adopted by the Subordinate authorities for considering the application submitted. 3. The Director of Town and Country Planning traced out certain irregularities and consequently, initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings. A charge memo under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 14.06.2010. The charge against the writ petitioner reads as under: “Charge No.1 That Thiru G.Nagarajan, Assistant Director/Member Secretary (I/c), Coimbatore Local Planning Authority has failed to scrutiny the proposal with relevant rules and submitted false information to the higher authorities. Thus, he is careless in discharging his official duties. Thiru G.Nagarajan, Assistant Director / Member Secretary (I/c) is instructed to submit his explanation within 15 days of receipt of this memo, failing which, further action will be taken against him as per rules.” 4. The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges. Thus, he is careless in discharging his official duties. Thiru G.Nagarajan, Assistant Director / Member Secretary (I/c) is instructed to submit his explanation within 15 days of receipt of this memo, failing which, further action will be taken against him as per rules.” 4. The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges. The second respondent / Disciplinary Authority, not convinced with the explanations, submitted by the writ petitioner, imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority reveals that “it is a major violation of sending the wrong details and thus delaying the approval and harassment to applicant”. On such finding, the penalty was imposed. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, who in turn, independently considered the allegations as well as the grounds raised by the writ petitioner. The first respondent / Government also confirmed the order of punishment in G.O.(D) No.7 Housing and Urban Development (Na.Va.2(1)) Department dated 08.1.2014. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there was no procedural lapse or otherwise. The petitioner has elaborately submitted his explanations, denying the charges. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have failed to consider those grounds with reference to the documents available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there was no finding in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and by the Appellate Authority. In the absence of any findings regarding the allegations, the order cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. In this regard, he relied on the judgment in the case of S.Vasudevan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Ors., reported in 2013 (8) MLJ 562 . The petitioner relied on the said judgment to establish that the order passed by the competent authority must contain the reasons and findings for the purpose of arriving a particular decision. 8. The Government of Tamil Nadu, The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Ors., reported in 2013 (8) MLJ 562 . The petitioner relied on the said judgment to establish that the order passed by the competent authority must contain the reasons and findings for the purpose of arriving a particular decision. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the observations made in the above judgment that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are the fact finding authorities and therefore, when the right of appeal is subjective right, the Appellate Authority ought to have passed a reasoned order, dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal. Relying on the findings that the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority must contain reasons and specific findings, the petitioner states that the impugned orders are passed without any such findings or reasons and therefore, liable to be set aside. 9. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the following judgments of this Court: (a) In the case of R.Govindarajan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, reported in (2013) 5 MLJ 617 , wherein, this Court made the following observations: “4. Secondly, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, after receiving the report submitted by the enquiry officer and a written representation from the petitioner, nowhere independently discussed the case of the petitioner, either on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer or independently discussing along with the explanation offered by the petitioner. Indeed, a perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of recovery does not show any reason whatsoever. Again, when order passed by the appellate authority is perused by this Court, it could be seen that the appellate authority has committed serious error in reversing the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of charge No. 1, without even giving any notice to the petitioner, and especially when the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the findings relating to Charge Nos. 2 to 5 and the charge No. 1 was not even subject matter of the appeal, as it was already found not guilty by the enquiry officer. It is settled law that an executive action must be informed by reason. 2 to 5 and the charge No. 1 was not even subject matter of the appeal, as it was already found not guilty by the enquiry officer. It is settled law that an executive action must be informed by reason. Any executive action can only survive for a potent reason. Moreover, any action which is simply unfair or unreasonable would not be sustained, for a reason that a charged employee should also be given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case by the disciplinary authority and even the order passed by the disciplinary authority should be fair and reasonable. In the present case, the impugned orders do not fall within the purview of the above principle.” (b) In the case of T.P.Krishnan Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by its Chairman and others, reported in (2000) II M.L.J 20, the following observations are made: “19. So far as the other Writ Petition No. 10117 of 1992 is concerned, a cursory glance into the order, dated 28 December 1990, would reveal that the petitioner's name is shown in the eight place and it is the case of the petitioner that he is senior to the second and third respondents named in the writ petition and that he was not given his promotion as per the panel prepared and published in the order, dated 28 December 1990, is sought to be quashed and in spite of appeal preferred to the Chairman, Electricity Board, the same got rejected as per the order, dated 25 March 1991, second referred to in the prayer and the order is a one sentence order without revealing anything regarding the materials which have been considered by the appellate authority so as to arrive at the conclusion to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner. This Court has time and again held that in such matters either the competent authority or the appellate authority is required to pass a speaking order in due consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole matter and in proper appreciation of the materials placed on record and assigning valid and tangible reasons for the conclusions arrived at in due application of mind. From the one sentence order passed under the guise of by order of the Chairman cannot be legally taken as an order either valid or binding on the petitioner and the non-speaking order is non est in law and hence necessarily the said order has to be set aside.” 10. Relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the unreasoned orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader objected the said contentions by stating that the petitioner while working as Assistant Director/Member Secretary (incharge) in Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Office has submitted a proposal to Head Office in Roc.No.1621/2010/LPA2, dated 05.05.2010, stating that the proposal has satisfied the front and rear open space. On scrutiny of the proposal it was noticed that the front and rear open are not satisfied. It violated 100% of the rules, But, the petitioner in his letter dated 5.5.2010 stated that the front and rear open are satisfying as mentioned in the proposal. Hence for submitting wrong information, charges under rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was framed in Roe.No.14064/2010/K1, dated 14.6.2010. “That the petitioner/Assistant Director/Member Secretary (incharge), Coimbatore Local Planning Authority has failed to scrutinize the proposal with relevant rules and submitted false information to the higher authorities”. The proposal has been sent to the Director of Town and Country Planning with 100% violation of rules. As such, the statement of the petitioner that he has not committed any lapse on his part is not accepted and may be rejected. 12. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner in his letter dated 29.06.2010 has submitted explanation for the charge memo issued by DTCP. In his explanation he has blamed the other official and staff which is not acceptable. As a Head of office, he has overall control and it is his prime responsibility to watch the proper functioning of all sections. As such the statement of the petitioner is not accepted. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted, punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect awarded. As a Head of office, he has overall control and it is his prime responsibility to watch the proper functioning of all sections. As such the statement of the petitioner is not accepted. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted, punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect awarded. The delinquency for which charge memo was given and punishment awarded has been mentioned in the charge memo as well as in the final orders passed by Director of Town and Country Planning in Proceedings Roc No.14064/2010/K1, dated 10.12.2010. As such the statement of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has not assigned any reason for not accepting the explanation is not a valid one. The punishment was awarded only on scrutiny of relevant files and thus it may be rejected. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the reasons were furnished and the authorities have not accepted the explanation of the writ petitioner by considering the conduct and the materials available on record. Thus, there is no infirmity and the writ petition is to be rejected. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that Charge Memorandum under Rule 17(a) was issued for imposing minor penalty. Minor charges are framed regarding certain lapses. The rule provides Summary proceedings in respect of 17 (a) charges. Thus, no enquiry needs to be conducted under the rules in force. In accordance with the procedures contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17 (a) and the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges and the Disciplinary Authority considered the explanations and thereafter, took a decision. 15. Question arises, whether the decision taken is without application of mind or reasons stated in the orders impugned are insufficient. 16. Let us now look into the nature of allegations, which relates to the failure on the part of the writ petitioner to scrutinize the proposals with relevant rules and further, he had submitted false informations to the higher authorities. Thus, the charges were framed for his careless conduct in discharging his official duties. No doubt, the petitioner had narrated the events with reference to the scrutinization of the application submitted by the individual. Thus, the charges were framed for his careless conduct in discharging his official duties. No doubt, the petitioner had narrated the events with reference to the scrutinization of the application submitted by the individual. However, the authorities have formed an opinion that it is a major violation of sending wrong details and thus, delaying the approval and harassment to the applicant. 17. This Court is of an opinion that there is a definite finding for imposing punishment in the order impugned. The findings and the reasons are that the violation committed by the writ petitioner by sending wrong details and delaying the approval, resulted in harassment of the applicant, who is a public. Therefore, the authorities formed an opinion that there was a violation of sending wrong details and delay caused for sending the approval and such delay caused harassment to the applicant. Thus, one cannot form an opinion that the order impugned is not reasoned. There is a definite reason. Since it was a lapse committed, charges are framed only under Rule 17(a) and not under Rule 17(b). The findings in the original order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is unambiguous that the petitioner has committed violation of sending the wrong details, which caused delay in granting approval and such a delay caused harassment to the applicant. 18. The findings of the authority undoubtedly involves the public services to be provided to the citizen of our great Nation. There is a common complaint in the public domain that in the Government Office, such applications are not processed properly. On receipt of application, it is kept in cold storage on many occasions and the processing applications are taking longer time without any valid reason. Even on some occasions, such applications are kept pending with other expectations. Extraneous considerations are also involved in such applications for grant of building approval, alteration or otherwise. These aspects are to be taken into consideration by the competent authorities and therefore, any such lapse in sending long details or delaying the approval would undoubtedly cause harassment to the applicants. Any delay in granting approval would also cause financial loss to the applicants. These aspects are to be taken into consideration by the competent authorities and therefore, any such lapse in sending long details or delaying the approval would undoubtedly cause harassment to the applicants. Any delay in granting approval would also cause financial loss to the applicants. All such mitigating factors plays a pivotal role and therefore, wherever there is an enormous delay or the files are kept pending unnecessarily for a prolonged period, disciplinary actions are warranted and the present case is one such case, where the official has caused harassment to the applicant and therefore, the Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the explanations submitted by the writ petitioner was considered and not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, which cannot be construed as infirmity. 19. The processes, through which, a decision is taken by the authorities is in consonance with the procedures contemplated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and in respect of the decision, the scope of exercise of power of judicial review is limited. Thus, all the judgments relied on by the petitioner that there is no finding in the orders, cannot be applied with, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, in the case of the writ petitioner, the reasons are sound enough to form an opinion that the petitioner has committed an act of minor misconduct and therefore, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 20. Perusal of the Appellate order reveals that the facts and circumstances were independently considered by the Government. The findings are also given independently by the Government and the manner, in which, the delay occurred and the conduct of the official in causing delay in grant of approval on the application were elaborately considered by the Government in its G.O.(D) No.7 Housing and Urban Development (Na.Va.2(1)) Department dated 08.1.2014, which is impugned in this writ petition. 21. Thus, this Court do not find any acceptable reason for the purpose of interfering with the orders of punishment and the Appellate order, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.