ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1 st Respondent dated 06.01.2022 passed in G.O.(pa).No.7 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Na.Pa.1), quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent with all consequential benefits with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. 2.The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 14.05.2007. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 2014 and on promotion, the petitioner was placed in RTI seat in the Petition Section. He was directed to take additional charge of F-3 seat that pertained to the establishment of last grade employees of the Engineering Service, which was loaded with crucial litigation files of employees. Though the petitioner initially accepted the additional charge, in the course of time, finding it very difficult, he expressed his unwillingness to the Joint Commissioner (Admn), who knowing that it was practically impossible to handle both the seats, assured to relieve him from the additional charge. However, due to administrative difficulty, the Joint Commissioner (Admn) could not relieve the petitioner from the additional charge till April 2015. Later, the petitioner was transferred to the office of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem. While so, the second Respondent issued a memo to the petitioner on 01.06.2015, framing three charges against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report dated 17.11.17 was submitted to the second respondent. 3.In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer found that charge No.1 was proved, charge No.2 was not proved and charge No.3 was partially proved. Based on the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, the second respondent passed an order on 03.10.2018, imposing penalty of stoppage of three years increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st Respondent. In the Appeal, the first respondent held that charge No.1 and 3 were also not proved. However, the first respondent strangely modified the punishment by stopping three years increment without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st Respondent. In the Appeal, the first respondent held that charge No.1 and 3 were also not proved. However, the first respondent strangely modified the punishment by stopping three years increment without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Though the petitioner was ranked No.1 in the panel of seniority for promotion to the post of Superintendent for the year 2018-2019, his name was dropped due to the pendency of the Appeal, while his juniors were promoted and so the petitioner filed the above Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. 4.The Respondent filed a counter affidavit and submitted inter alia, that for the lapses committed by the petitioner and for violation of Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The respondent submitted that based on the enquiry officer's report, a punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect was awarded to the petitioner vide Commissioner of Municipal Administration Proceedings in ROC. No.1408/15/OP1, dated 03.10.2018. The respondent further submitted that on appeal by the petitioner, the appellate authority after getting remarks from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued the impugned order, reducing the punishment to stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect, instead of with cumulative effect. The respondent submitted that as the petitioner committed serious lapses, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and punishment was imposed, by following the procedures. Hence, the respondents submitted that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 6.The petitioner was issued with charge memo dated 01.06.2015, with the following charges: “a. I have not forwarded the RTI petition received between January 2015 to March 2015 and kept it pending lethargically. b. I have not handed over the charges to my successor, properly. c. As I have committed the above two charges, I have violated 20(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules , 1973” An enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 10.08.2015, was filed, in which it was observed that charge No.1 was proved, charge No.2 was not proved and charge No.3 was partially proved. c. As I have committed the above two charges, I have violated 20(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules , 1973” An enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 10.08.2015, was filed, in which it was observed that charge No.1 was proved, charge No.2 was not proved and charge No.3 was partially proved. Based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the second respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 03.10.2018. The petitioner challenged the said punishment order of the second respondent before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment to stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect instead of with cumulative effect. Meanwhile, though the petitioner was ranked as No.1 in the panel of seniority for promotion to the post of Superintendent for the year 2018-2019, his name was dropped due to the pendency of the Appeal before the first respondent. 7.The enquiry officer in his report dated 17.11.2017, found that charge No.1 was proved, charge No.2 was not proved and charge No.3 was partially proved. On appeal by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority, the first respondent herein, in his impugned order, found that charges Nos.1 & 3 were not proved. The relevant portion of the findings of the Appellate Authority reads as follows: When the first respondent/Appellate Authority found that none of the charges were proved, then as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the first respondent ought to have setaside the punishment order. In the absence of proved charges, no punishment could be imposed. The first respondent/Appellate Authority clearly found that charges 1 & 3 were not proved. Further the finding of the enquiry officer that charge No.2 was not proved was not interfered. Hence, the first respondent ought to have set aside the punishment order and so the question of modification of the punishment did not arise. Hence in my view the impugned order of the first respondent modifying the punishment does not hold water. Further the finding of the enquiry officer that charge No.2 was not proved was not interfered. Hence, the first respondent ought to have set aside the punishment order and so the question of modification of the punishment did not arise. Hence in my view the impugned order of the first respondent modifying the punishment does not hold water. 8.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, consequently, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 06.01.2022 in G.O.(pa).No.7 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Na.Pa.1) is hereby set aside and the Respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent with all consequential benefits with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.