Judgment :- (This writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.3437 of 1998 from the file of Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal praying for the relief as stated therein.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.339 Home (Police 12) Department dated 23.03.1998, in which the petitioner was imposed a punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect and also the recovery of Rs.7,496.40 towards loss to the department. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner retired on 31.12.1998 and his annual increment is due as on 1.1.1999. Therefore according to the petitioner, the said order of punishment imposed on the petitioner for the charges under Section 17(b) is unworkable and the said punishment is imposed without application of mind. 3. The first contention of the petitioner is that two preliminary enquiries have been conducted by the Superintendent of Police for the very same set of allegations and on both the occasions, nothing was found against the petitioner and recommended to refer the complaints as mistake of fact. In so far as the second contention is concerned, I am unable to sustain the arguments because the preliminary enquiry is a fact binding enquiry and if the preliminary enquiry report is not convincing to the department, it is open to the department to conduct a regular enquiry. 4. It is admitted that in this case when regular charges are framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b), an enquiry was conducted. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is unworkable. As stated earlier, the petitioner retired on 31.12.1998 and the next annual increment was due only on 01.01.1999. Therefore, the order of punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is unworkable. 5. In the impugned order, the amount of Rs.7,496.40 is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner towards the loss sustained by the department. Since the charges are proved and the loss sustained by the department is also proved, there is no illegality in ordering recovery of the said amount. 5. In the impugned order, the amount of Rs.7,496.40 is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner towards the loss sustained by the department. Since the charges are proved and the loss sustained by the department is also proved, there is no illegality in ordering recovery of the said amount. In view of the above finding, the impugned order is set aside in so far as the order of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect alone is concerned. In other respects, the impugned order is sustained and the said amount of recovery can be adjusted from the petitioner's Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and all the retirement benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1092 of 2006 is closed.