JUDGMENT :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. T. Kokilavani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravichandran, learned Standing Counsel representing the Southern Railways and have perused the records. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT] dated 012. 2006 made in O.A. No. 317 of 2006 insofar as it imposed the punishment of reversion from the post of Fitter Grade I to that of Fitter Grade II and that he will not earn any other promotion during his service till his superannuation. Consequent to the order of the Tribunal dated 012. 2006, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Technical I Fitter to Technical II Fitter permanently. 3. The petitioner was employed as Fitter Grade I and he was issued with a charge-memo during the year 1998. The charge against the petitioner was that he had deliberately affixed his own Left Index Finger impression on the applications for grant of ex gratia pension to three persons. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report, he was imposed with a penalty of reduction to Grade II by an order dated 06. 1999. His appeal before the appellate authority having failed, he moved the CAT with O.A. No. 171 of 2000 and the said O.A. was allowed on the ground that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of defending himself and inasmuch as the documents relied on in the enquiry were not furnished to him, the enquiry was set aside. 4. The respondents found that the petitioner had affixed his Left Index Print only on the covering letter and not on the application and, therefore, an alternative charge-sheet dated 14. 2001 was given to him. It was also clearly proved that the thumb impression found in the covering letter was not that of the beneficiaries but that of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority was satisfied about the guilt of the petitioner and on the basis of the second enquiry, he was dismissed from service. 5. However, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai, who is the appellate authority, modified the punishment into one of compulsory retirement by his order dated 30.7.2002. 6. The petitioner once again filed another Original Application being O.A. No. 316 of 2006 before the CAT. 5. However, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai, who is the appellate authority, modified the punishment into one of compulsory retirement by his order dated 30.7.2002. 6. The petitioner once again filed another Original Application being O.A. No. 316 of 2006 before the CAT. Before the CAT, he took up the contention that he had made no attempt to fabricate the documents and that only as a good samaritan to help the illiterate workmen, he put his thumb impression on the covering letter as model form and prayed for leniency. 7. The Tribunal by its order dated 012. 2006, held that the petitioner had over-reached his role by affixing his own Index Finger print and he had to face some punishment. After finding that the proceedings were pending from 1993 to 2002, and that on an earlier occasion for the very same charge, the disciplinary authority had imposed only the punishment of reduction to a lower rank, the Tribunal modified the punishment of compulsory retirement in to one of reduction to Fitter Grade – II. But however, stated that the punishment will be a permanent one and he will not be given any further promotion during his remaining tenure. 8. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had only six years to retire and notwithstanding the word permanent used by the CAT, the punishment can be only up to his reaching the age of superannuation which means for six years. In the present case, the Department had not filed any writ petition against that portion of the order modifying the punishment, on the ground that such power can only be exercised by an employer and not by the Tribunal. It is only the petitioner who has come forward to challenge the punishment of reduction in rank. 9. We see that the CAT found that the punishment of reduction in rank cannot be said to be unjust considering the misconduct levelled against the petitioner. Even before the CAT, he could not assail the finding of guilt. The contention that there cannot be a permanent demotion cannot be accepted. It is one thing to say that the employer was capable of imposing only the punishments provided under the relevant Service Rules. But when the Tribunal or the High Court modifies the punishment, it is not circumscribed by the limitations placed by the Service Rules. 10. The contention that there cannot be a permanent demotion cannot be accepted. It is one thing to say that the employer was capable of imposing only the punishments provided under the relevant Service Rules. But when the Tribunal or the High Court modifies the punishment, it is not circumscribed by the limitations placed by the Service Rules. 10. In any event, instead of being out of service, the petitioner had been retained in service, thanks to the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. Even though no time is specified by the CAT regarding the reduction in rank, the intention of the CAT is clear by the fact that it states that he should suffer the punishment till his retirement, which is only six more years. In any event, we are not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CAT in modifying the punishment. The petitioner having enjoyed the exercise of discretion by the CAT, which is normally not available to that forum, cannot once again seek for a further discretion from this Court. 11. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.