Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent herein in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Order No.17516/Ni.A.Pa.1/2002, dated 9.3.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner, with effect from 14.8.2003, within a time frame. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the writ petition, are as follows:- The petitioner had joined in the government service as a Football Coach, on 17.08.1976, and he was promoted as the District Sports Officer in the year 1986. The petitioner was due for next promotion in the year 2003. On 11.07.2003, he was served with a show cause notice alleging six delinquencies against the petitioner for which disciplinary action was to be initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. On 24.07.2003, the petitioner had submitted his explanation. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 14.08.2003, on the ground that an inquiry into grave charges was contemplated. On 09.10.2003, the respondent had framed the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge memo consisted of three counts of dereliction of duty. As per the existing Government Orders the charge memo, under Rule 17(b), can be framed for grave allegations warranting a severe punishment. However, in the case of the petitioner, the allegations have been made only for the reason of denying the petitioner's legitimate claim for promotion. 4. It has been further stated that the first count of charge relate to the alleged failure of the petitioner to check the cash book and other registers and diaries resulting in his subordinates making a complaint to the District Collector. The second count of the charge is that the petitioner had attended duty only for 74 days out of 275 working days from 25.02.2002 to 11.02.2003, and that he had failed to be present, on 05.08.2003, when the Minister for Sports and Youth Welfare had visited the office. The second count of the charge is that the petitioner had attended duty only for 74 days out of 275 working days from 25.02.2002 to 11.02.2003, and that he had failed to be present, on 05.08.2003, when the Minister for Sports and Youth Welfare had visited the office. During the oral enquiry, both the counts were held to be false and not proved. The third count of the charge against the petitioner is for having failed to settle the accounts of the summer coaching camp. During the enquiry, none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed that the petitioner had indulged in mal-practice or misappropriation of the Government funds. Only third count of the charge was held to be proved. Even though, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the Disciplinary Authority, requesting him to drop all the proceedings, the respondent, on 09.03.2005, had imposed the major punishment of reduction in rank to the post of Coach, for a period of three years. The respondent had passed the impugned order, treating the period of suspension as leave, which is in violation of the provisions of the Fundamental Rules. As per the provisions of Rule 17(b), a delinquent officer cannot be imposed with more than one punishment for a misconduct. Whereas, in the present case, the respondent had listed out as many as four penalties, including treating the period of suspension as leave, violating the statutory rules. The punishment in reduction in rank is excessive, harsh and highly disproportionate. The petitioner had maintained a clean record of service for the past 29 years of his service. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has an appellate remedy before the Executive Committee and the petitioner has already filed an appeal which is pending disposal. Without awaiting the decision on the appeal, the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court. The petitioner's contention that the proceedings have been initiated against him at the verge of his next promotion, with a view to deny the petitioner's legitimate claim for promotion, is not correct. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated only after the receipt of petitions of allegations against the petitioner from the staff of the Sport Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, District Unit, Kancheepuram, and forwarded by the District Collector. 6. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated only after the receipt of petitions of allegations against the petitioner from the staff of the Sport Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, District Unit, Kancheepuram, and forwarded by the District Collector. 6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has pointed out that the appeal remedy is provided under Rule 60 of the Service Rules for Employees of Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, 1998, which reads as follows:- "The Executive Committee or the Authority as the case may be, shall be the Appellate Authority in all service matters in which the Member Secretary or the Executive committee respectively has been designated as the Appointing Authority." 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition, has submitted an appeal, on 20.09.2005, to the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, which is still pending, as no orders have been passed till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that it would suffice, if the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, is directed to dispose of the appeal within a specified time frame. 8. On such submission being made, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, on 20.09.2005, under Rule 60 of the Service Rules for Employees of Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, 1998, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.