Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Government officials against the order dated 111. 2003 passed in O.A.No.3736 of 2000, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the punishment of dismissal and modified the same to stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect and further directed that no backwages would be payable. 3. The present Respondent No.1 was employed as a Village Administrative Officer in Ariyur village. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him as per the charge memo dated 12. 1999. The departmental authorities, on the basis of the enquiry report, found that all the five charges had been proved and passed an order of dismissal by order dated 4. 2000. Such order came to be challenged in O.A.No.3736 of 2000. In brief the charges were to the following effect:- Charge No.1 - The delinquent had not been residing within the jurisdiction village. Charge No.2 - The delinquent had absented himself from duty on 11. 1996, 11. 1996 and 11. 1996 during the time when the Deputy Tahsildar had visited the village. Charge No.3 - Out of 17 receipt books entrusted to the delinquent, he returned 16 books but had failed to return one receipt book. Charge Nos.4 & 5 - The delinquent had misappropriated a sum of Rs.56,211/-and remitted such amount only belatedly. 4. The Tribunal in its judgment found that Charge Nos.1 and 2 had been proved. Even in respect of Charge No.3, the Tribunal found that the delinquent had failed to return one receipt book. In respect of Charge Nos.4 and 5, the Tribunal found that the delinquent had remitted the amount subsequently. However, the Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to show that the amounts in question had been collected on a particular day and there was no proof of actual misappropriation and that the delinquent for his own use had converted the amount. Ultimately the Tribunal observed: - "5. ... Even taking for granted that the charges are proved, in view of the nature of the committed irregularities and the mistake committed by the applicant, punishment of dismissal is too excessive and shockingly disproportionate. The applicant is only 43 years old. The Department has no past record to hold against the applicant. The applicant must be given a chance to mend his ways and prove useful to the department. The applicant is only 43 years old. The Department has no past record to hold against the applicant. The applicant must be given a chance to mend his ways and prove useful to the department. Therefore, while setting aside the punishment of dismissal, the respondents are directed to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect and also denial of backwages for the period of unemployment." Such order of the Tribunal had been challenged by the departmental officials. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that the charges had been proved, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment of dismissal and at any rate the order of the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the delinquent in service was uncalled for. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 submitted that as a matter of fact Respondent No.1, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had challenged various findings in the departmental proceedings as based on no evidence, but the Tribunal without properly considering such contention has observed that most of the charges had been established. It has been further submitted that there was nothing on record to indicate that there had been misappropriation and, therefore, in the absence of proof relating to serious charges, the order of dismissal was grossly disproportionate. 7. After the writ petition was heard and posted for further hearing, respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating that in case the court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, the punishment of compulsory retirement may be imposed so that the Respondent No.1 and his family members could at least sustain themselves by getting the pension amount. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and having gone through the materials on record, we find, even though more serious charge relating to misappropriation had not been proved, the charges which had been proved and more particularly the charge relating to loss of receipt book, was quite serious. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal regarding reinstatement was obviously uncalled for. Keeping in view the background of the case and nature of the allegations relating to charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, we do not think it was appropriate on the part of the Tribunal to direct reinstatement of Respondent No.1. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal regarding reinstatement was obviously uncalled for. Keeping in view the background of the case and nature of the allegations relating to charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, we do not think it was appropriate on the part of the Tribunal to direct reinstatement of Respondent No.1. Therefore, such order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 9. The next question is relating to punishment. In normal course, the matter could have been remanded to the departmental authorities for reconsidering the question of punishment. However, since the occurrence had taken long back and more particularly an affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.1 praying for imposition of lesser punishment of compulsory retirement, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, instead of sustaining the order of dismissal, it would be more appropriate to direct that Respondent No.1 shall be deemed to have been compulsorily retired with effect from 4. 2000. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the order passed by the Tribunal directing reinstatement is set aside and it is directed that Respondent No.1 shall deemed to have bee compulsorily retired with effect from the date of dismissal. The benefits available to Respondent No.1 on account of such modified punishment of compulsory retirement, shall be made available to Respondent No.1, if he is otherwise eligible, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the WPMP.No.42994 of 2004 is closed.