The court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedures under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and the scope of judicial review was limited in this case.

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. 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 sus