1. During the tenure of the petitioner as Regional Transport Officer, Virudhunagar, a surprise inspection was conducted by one Thiru. R. Thomas, an Assistant attached to the office of the Deputy Inspection Cell Officer, Ramanathapuram, on 25.10.2005 along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Virudunagar, and based on the report, the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a charge memo, dated 25.4.2006 to the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, to wit that, the petitioner in allowing one Thiru. Ramkumar, a private individual to work unauthorisedly from the year 2000 onwards, for typing work, given him access to official records and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted himself in a manner of unbecoming of a Government Servant. Responding to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted a written representation dated 12.6.2006 denying the charges. The 2nd respondent, on receipt of the abovesaid explanation, by order dated 23.3.2007 appointed the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Salem, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations and submit a report. The enquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner as not proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, Principal Secretary and Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, by proceedings dated 8.7.2008, disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. By enclosing the copy of the enquiry officer‘s report and his dissenting note, the disciplinary authority has called for further representation. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a further representation on 25.5.2009, in which, he has put forth valid reasons and requested the disciplinary authority to accept the enquiry officer‘s report and prayed to drop further action. But, the 1st respondent without considering the reply in proper perspective, has passed the impugned order in G.O. (D) No. 1133, Home (Tr-II) Department, dated 9.11.2009, holding the charges as proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect intended to affect his pension. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition in W.P. No. 2456 of 2010. In the mean time, the first respondent has prepared a panel of Regional Transport Officers fit for promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner for the year 2009-10. Therefore, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 12108 of 2010, seeking for promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner in the panel for the year 2009-10, without reference to the punishment imposed in G.O. (D) No. 1133, Home (Transport II) Department, dated 9.11.2009.

2. Assailing the correctness of the order, Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was joined the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Virudhunagar, only in the year 2002, whereas, the Disciplinary Authority, without considering the records properly has mechanically held that the petitioner was responsible for allowing a private individual from 2000 onwards and therefore non-application of mind, on the part of the disciplinary authority, is per se apparent and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the procedure followed by the 1st respondent while disagreeing with the views of the enquiry officer is in total violation of principles of natural justice, in that, the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer has straightaway held that the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. According to the learned Senior Counsel, if the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the findings recorded by