Judgment :- The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5648 to 5651 of 1999 and W.P.No.5257 of 1999 have been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in respectively, dated 3. 1999 and quash the same. Ka.Ku.No.426/13247/D4/TNSTC/98, Ka.Ku.No.426/13247/D4/TNSTC/98, Ka.Ku.No.1096/1113/D3/TNSTC/98-2, Ka.Ku.No.1096/1113/D3/TNSTC/98-3 Ka.Ku.No.1096/1113/D3/TNSTC/98-1 .2. The grievance of the petitioners as put forth by them in the above writ petitions in nutshell is as follows:- .The various trade unions in State Transport Corporations and undertaking called for strike through out the State on 9th & 10th September 1998. The petitioners were working in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division, at Pondicherry Branch. On 9. 1998 at about 1 p.m. a bus belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation was attacked by throwing stones and beating with the sticks at Marappalam between Pondicherry and Cuddalory Bye-pass Road. The Branch Manager of the said Corporation filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners on the file of the Inspector, Muthialpet Police Station, Pondicherry at the instigation of other trade union. The first respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension and charges were framed against them. The charge memo was issued to the petitioners on 29. 1998 alleging that the petitioners have thrown stones and attempted to damage the bus by beating with sticks. The petitioners have submitted their explanation denying the charges that they have been leveled against them. Thereafter, an enquiry officer has been appointed and he has submitted the report. The enquiry officer has given findings holding that charges are proved and on the basis of the said report, a show case notice was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be removed from service. Challenging the said show cause notice the petitioners preferred writ petitions and the same were dismissed. Later on, orders have been passed imposing punishment of reduction in pay scale for a period of five years with cumulative effect. The said orders are challenged in the present writ petitions. .3. Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire proceedings have been taken against the petitioners with motive since the petitioners belonged to rival trade union. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel, since criminal proceedings have been initiated against them by giving a criminal complaint, the departmental proceedings have to be deferred. .3. Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire proceedings have been taken against the petitioners with motive since the petitioners belonged to rival trade union. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel, since criminal proceedings have been initiated against them by giving a criminal complaint, the departmental proceedings have to be deferred. Further, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioners involving them in the said occurrence. It is the further case of the learned Senior counsel that occurrence. It is the further case of the learned Senior Counsel that occurrence. It is the further case of the learned Senior Counsel that the person who has given the complaint has not at all been examined. Thus the sum and substance of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the enquiry officer considered the entire evidence on record and came to the right conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioners have been proved. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the impugned orders have been passed after considering the entire aspect, which need not be modified. 5. I heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. It has to be seen that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is grossly disproportionate, a specially in the light of the fact that only minor and consequential charges have been held proved. Though, normally the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the respondents for fresh look regarding the quantum of penalty, I do not propose to do it because period of nine years has elapsed from the date of initiation of the proceedings and hence such an order of remand would only prolong the agony of the petitioners. Therefore, in the light of the above said circumstances, instead of setting aside the impugned orders in its entirety the punishment can be modified into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, instead of the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay for a period of five years. 7. Therefore, in the light of the above said circumstances, instead of setting aside the impugned orders in its entirety the punishment can be modified into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, instead of the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay for a period of five years. 7. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.