Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner was working under Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. In course of time, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Manager. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, wherein twelve charges have been framed. The Enquiry Officer found that five of the charges have been proved. Even though, the petitioner was exonerated in respect of more serious charges, the disciplinary authority observed " ......I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold all charges as proved." On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reversion for a period of three years. The said order of punishment has been impugned in the present writ petition. 3. At the time of entertaining the writ petition, an interim order of stay in respect of order of reversion was passed, as a result of which, the petitioner continued in the post of Assistant Manager. In course of time, he has attained the age of super-annuation and has retired from service. Subsequently, stay petition and vacate stay petition were considered by the learned single judge of this Court and the following order was passed: "Petitioner had been reverted to the post of Superintendent for a period of three years and on the completion of the said period, he has been restored to the post of Assistant Manager and he has since retired. Pending the writ petition, his reversion order was stayed and he was allowed to continue as Assistant Manager. 2. However, inasmuch as he had the advantage of continuing as Assistant Manager only as an interim measure, he is not entitled to take that period of service as Assistant Manager for the purpose of counting his retirement benefits. The service benefits of the petitioner can be provisionally calculated treating the three year reversion intact for calculating his retirement benefits. 3. The interim order is hereby made absolute subject to the above modification." 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner is guilty of five minor charges, the disciplinary authority came to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner had been found guilty of all the charges and on the basis of such erroneous conclusion, the major punishment has been imposed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even though the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner is guilty of five minor charges, the disciplinary authority came to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner had been found guilty of all the charges and on the basis of such erroneous conclusion, the major punishment has been imposed. It is further submitted that even the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer regarding five of the charges is unsupported in law, inasmuch as there was no enquiry and no evidence had been recorded, oral or documentary, and without any material record the Enquiry Officer had come to such conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision by a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1998 (III) MLJR 192 [SHANMUGHAM v.. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, MADRAS REGION, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MADRAS.] and submitted that the enquiry should have been conducted in the manner contemplated under the rules. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that after service of charge memo on the petitioner, no explanation had been furnished and the petitioner had not insisted upon any enquiry being held and therefore, the report had been submitted by the Enquiry Officer even though no evidence, either oral or documentary, had been adduced. 6. Whatever may the worth of such a submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I find that the first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is substantial. A perusal of the report of the order of the disciplinary authority makes it clear that he was of the opinion that all the charges bad been proved against the delinquent. This is obviously an error of record inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner in respect of seven charges including some serious allegations and in respect of five minor charges the petitioner had been found guilty. It is obvious that if the disciplinary authority would have kept this aspect in mind, the punishment of reversion would not have been passed. Therefore, the order of reversion, which has been passed on the basis of an erroneous assumption made by the disciplinary authority without proper application of mind, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 7. It is obvious that if the disciplinary authority would have kept this aspect in mind, the punishment of reversion would not have been passed. Therefore, the order of reversion, which has been passed on the basis of an erroneous assumption made by the disciplinary authority without proper application of mind, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 7. The next question as to whether the matter should be remanded to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration? As already noticed, the petitioner has retired in the meantime. Even though if the order of reversion would have been sustained, such a punishment would not have any effect on the rights of the petitioner getting the pensionary benefit, as the petitioner had already been attained the highest pay scale in the post of Superintendent. In such view of the matter, it is not necessary to remand the matter for any fresh consideration so far as the disciplinary action is concerned. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the action of the petitioner had resulted in causing loss to the Corporation and the recovery proceeding is still pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted that in fact the recovery proceeding is pending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is observed that such recovery proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by the disciplinary authority in the order of punishment nor by any observations made in the present order of the High Court and the matter has to be decided on its own merit on the basis of materials on record in such recovery proceeding. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, WMP No.11247 of 1996 is closed.