Judgment :- The writ petition is to call for the records of the second respondent, namely, the Chief Educational Officer, The Nilgiris, Ootacamund, Nilgiris District made in Na.Ka.No.11370/B2/92 dated 12.01.1995, peruse and set aside the same. 2. The facts arising out of this writ petition are as under:- The petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Craft Instructor and joined duty on 16.03.1971. In the year 1992, when he was working in Government High School, Ambalamoola, he was not prompt in his work. Hence the parents of the students made many complaints against the petitioner. The Headmaster of that school also made a complaint against the petitioner to the Chief Educational Officer, the above mentioned second respondent. The complaint against the petitioner was that, on 22.09.1992 the petitioner absented himself from duty without forwarding leave letter and on earlier occasions he had already exhausted his 12 days casual leave. Thereafter there was another complaint given by the said Headmaster against the petitioner that the petitioner had created a scene on 110. 1992 in a drunken mood and destroyed the School Registers. The second respondent directed the petitioner to give an explanation against the petitioner in his proceedings dated 30.11.1992. The charges against the petitioner are:- 1. Absenting himself without leave application on 22.09.1992. 2. On 110. 1992, came in a drunken mood and disturbed the school records. The petitioner had also given an explanation on 212. 1992 denying the allegations. The second respondent, by his proceedings dated 08.02.1993, passed an order suspending the petitioner from service pending enquiry on the charges against the petitioner. After the enquiry, the second respondent by order dated 16.03.1993 cancelled the suspension order and the petitioner was transferred to Government High School, Thuthurmattam. The petitioner did not join the said school immediately due to health reasons. Thereafter, the second respondent in his proceedings dated 28.07.1993 framed charges against the petitioner and there was only one charge that on 110. 1992 at about 1.45 p.m., the petitioner destroyed the promotion register and attendance register in a drunken mood. The petitioner was directed to give explanation on 18. 1993. The petitioner had also given a detailed explanation stating that the charges are frivolous and false. Once again, the second respondent gave another charge sheet against the petitioner framing as many as 5 charges including the charge mentioned in the earlier charge sheet. The petitioner was directed to give explanation on 18. 1993. The petitioner had also given a detailed explanation stating that the charges are frivolous and false. Once again, the second respondent gave another charge sheet against the petitioner framing as many as 5 charges including the charge mentioned in the earlier charge sheet. The petitioner had also given a detailed explanation once again denying all the allegations. After considering the explanation, the second respondent passed an order on 12.01.1995 withholding the increment of the petitioners salary without cumulative effect for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed O.A. No.1915 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16055 of 2006 on the abolition of the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is wrong, illegal, bad, without basis and justification. The petitioner had given a detailed explanation on 07.01.1994 and the same was not considered properly by the second respondent. It is also submitted that when one charge was framed on 28.07.1993 for which the petitioner had already given explanation, by another charge sheet dated 112. 1993, several charges were framed against the petitioner when admittedly the alleged other charges are prior to 28.07.1993. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the order passed by the second respondent is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. .4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was not at all sincere and prompt in his work. The petitioner used to leave the school without the permission of the Headmaster and there were lot of complaints against the petitioner by the local parents. There was a serious complaint against the petitioner that on 110. 1992 the petitioner had used alcoholic liquors and entered into the school office at lunch break time and destroyed the Masters Attendance Register and Students Mark Registers. On complaint, the second respondent also visited the Government High school, Ambalamoola on 03.02.1993 and verified the Masters Attendance Register and Students Mark Registers and found that two pages of the Masters Attendance Register and some pages of Students Mark Registers were torn. On complaint, the second respondent also visited the Government High school, Ambalamoola on 03.02.1993 and verified the Masters Attendance Register and Students Mark Registers and found that two pages of the Masters Attendance Register and some pages of Students Mark Registers were torn. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is in accordance with law. .5. Heard the counsel. The indisputable facts are that the petitioner was not sincere and prompt in his work. There were lot of complaints against the petitioner by the parents of the students. Also, a meeting of the local people decided to resort to fasting agitation before the school from 02.02.1993 to 12.02.1993 and also to agitate in front of the Taluk Office, Gudalur and they displayed and distributed the hand bills. Hence, the R.D.O., Gudalur had requested the second respondent to take action against the teacher, as the petitioners activities created law and order in Gudalur Taluk. On enquiry, the second respondent found that two pages of the Masters Attendance Register and some pages of Students Mark Registers were torn and also the other co-teachers made complaints that the petitioner was in a drunken mood and created a scene. After proper enquiry, the petitioner was suspended and the suspension was revoked later. Destroying office records amount to serious offence. Being a teacher, he must set an example to others. Coming to school under the influence of alcohol is a very serious one. Hence the first action was taken against this offence and the offence was booked under F.R. 17 R.A. and orders were issued to withhold the increment without cumulative effect. Later the petitioner was charged for offences stated above, but no punishment was given under humanitarian ground. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner as well as the earlier charges, and also the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 12.01.1995 which reads as under:- On a bare reading of the above, it is clear that the second respondent had considered all the materials and came to the correct conclusion withholding the increment of the petitioners salary without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The punishment given is a very lenient one. Drunken cases, that too school teachers, should be very severely dealt with. However, it was informed that the petitioner had already retired from service. The punishment given is a very lenient one. Drunken cases, that too school teachers, should be very severely dealt with. However, it was informed that the petitioner had already retired from service. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.