JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.71368/2012/DPC 1.1, dated 17.08.2017 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order of the original authority (2nd respondent), dated 06.06.2012. 2. Pursuant to a charge memo issued against the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant, enquiry was conducted in the disciplinary proceedings and by order dated 06.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent, penalty of one stoppage of increment cut without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not seek permission to purchase the property from the District Collector. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent(original authority), the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by its order dated 17.08.2017 confirmed the findings of the 2nd respondent by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds :- The petitioner's representations seeking for grant of permission to purchase the immovable property were not considered. According to the petitioner as per Rule 7(1)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973, if the representations of the petitioner seeking permission to purchase immovable property have not been considered for more than six months, it is deemed that permission is granted. The petitioner contends that the petitioner sought for permission through his representations, dated 04.06.2009 and 14.07.2009 whereas, he purchased the property only on 04.06.2010 and therefore, it is deemed that permission has been granted by the District Collector since the petitioner's representations were not responded to by the District Collector. 5. As seen from the impugned orders, both by the 2nd respondent dated 06.06.2012 and the Appellate Authority dated 17.08.2017, no reasons have been given with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. 5. As seen from the impugned orders, both by the 2nd respondent dated 06.06.2012 and the Appellate Authority dated 17.08.2017, no reasons have been given with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. The petitioner has also filed documents along with this writ petition to substantiate his case that requests for permission to purchase of immovable property was sought for by him with the District Collector and despite those requests, the District Collector did not grant permission or reject the petitioner's application, within a period of six months. 7. Rule 7(2-A) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 reads as follows:- (2-A) The prescribed authority shall dispose of the application seeking the sanction/permission referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such application from the Government Servant. If any clarifications or particulars are sought for from the Government Servant, the said period of six months shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of such clarifications or particulars. Where no order according such sanction or granting such permission is issued within the said period of six months, it shall be deemed that the prescribed authority has accorded the sanction or granted the permission on the expiry of the said period of six months and the Government Servant can acquire or dispose the immovable property; purchase or sale the movable property or commence the construction/extension of the house. 8. The aforementioned rule relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of her arguments has not been considered by the 1st and 2nd respondents under their respective impugned orders. Except for extracting the contentions of the petitioner as well as the prosecution's case, no reasons have been given for rejecting the petitioner's contentions. Both the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent under the respective impugned orders have not furnished any reasons as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Except for extracting the contentions of the petitioner as well as the prosecution's case, no reasons have been given for rejecting the petitioner's contentions. Both the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent under the respective impugned orders have not furnished any reasons as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Being a non speaking order with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that both the impugned orders viz., the order dated 06.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority's have to be quashed and the matter will have to be remanded back to the 2nd respondent (original authority) for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. However, there is no necessity for the 1st respondent to entertain any fresh evidence. Based on the evidence available on record, the petitioner's contentions will have to be reconsidered once again by passing a reasoned order either favouring the petitioner or the respondents. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders i) dated 17.08.2017 passed by the 1st respondent and ii) dated 06.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the original authority viz., the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law based on the existing evidence available on record. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.