THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 20987 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings in Rc.No.E1/3/2004 dated 9.9.2007 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including backwages. It appears, petitioner was working on temporary basis in the respondent-Institute as a Senior Mechanic. While that being so, he seems to have applied for leave for half day on 3.3.2003 and also applied for leave on 12.3.2003 for one day. The leave was sanctioned. However, when he came to office on 13.3.2003, instead of signing in the column dated 13.3.2003, he has signed in the column dated 12.3.2003, for which a memo was issued to him on 12.9.2003. Petitioner gave explanation stating that it was a mistake on his part in doing so and he may be pardoned for the same. However, an enquiry was conducted by appointing a regular Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding petitioner guilty of the charge, without hearing the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed W.P. No. 24600 of 2003. However, during pendency of the said writ petition, respondents appointed one R.Vasudevan, Deputy Executive Engineer as second enquiry officer. The said Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 7.5.2007 stating that the charges, on the basis of which the petitioner was kept under suspension, are very simple, minor, not involving any moral turpitude such as misappropriation of funds of the Institution etc. and do not warrant drastic action which may result in litigation, causing financial loss to the Institution besides foregoing the manpower of technical employee – mechanic. However, the disciplinary authority took the matter very seriously and discharged the petitioner from service of the respondent-Institute by the impugned order dated 9.9.2007. Hence, this writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order was passed in WPMP No. 27211 of 2007 dated 4.10.2007 suspending the impugned order as follows: “It appears, petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and an enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted a report without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner filed W.P. No. 24600 of 2003, which was disposed of. In the meanwhile, it appears, that a second enquiry officer was appointed on 14.11.2006. Therefore, petitioner filed Review WPMP No. 6764 of 2007, which was disposed of on 23.3.2007 directing the respondents to proceed with the second enquiry pursuant to the proceedings dated 14.11.2006 and pass appropriate orders. According to the petitioner, the second enquiry officer gave a report but without considering the same, the impugned order was passed”. In the teeth of appointment of second enquiry officer, the question of taking into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the first enquiry officer does not arise. The second enquiry officer submitted report stating that the charges are very minor, trivial and do not require, even if they are proved, a drastic action against the petitioner. But, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 9.9.2007 holding that the first enquiry report and orders passed by the then Executive Officer and Correspondent discharging the contract worker from service holds good. The said order passed by 2nd respondent does not disclose as to what exactly the misconduct committed by the petitioner and what exactly the findings recorded against the said misconduct. The report simply went on giving sermons saying that if such people are left without punishment, it would become a habit and it would set a bad precedent in the Organization. Except this, nothing is recorded against the petitioner while discharging him from service. Looking from any angle, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and, instead of remanding the matter, I deem it appropriate to give quietus to the litigation here itself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot escape from the misconduct committed by him and he has to suffer some punishment or the other. The punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including increments, arrears of salary etc. However, respondents shall impose punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect against the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 2-9-2010. MVB.