Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had submitted that he was appointed as a Junior Assistant, on 4. 1963. In the year 1978, he was promoted as an Assistant and thereafter, as a Manager in the year 1990. While he was working as a Manager, he was deputed to the Tamil Nadu Women Development Corporation, Villupuram, as an Extension Officer (Accounts). For certain discrepancies, which were pertaining to the Transfer Travel Allowance and Tour Advance etc., certain charges had been framed against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, the second respondent by his order, dated 27. 1993, had imposed the punishment of postponing the increment by two years without cumulative effect. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent by his appeal memorandum, dated 29. 1993. By an order, dated 19. 1994, the first respondent had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. 4. The main ground on which the petitioner had challenged the impugned order is that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to putforth his case and the explanation submitted by him has not been properly considered. 5. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that the imposition of recovery as well as the stoppage of increment would amount to double punishment and that the appellate authority had not applied his mind while rendering a speaking order. 6. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity and that the charges leveled against the petitioner had been sufficiently proved. 7. It has also been stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner for not handing over the records and for late remittance of money in the relevant accounts were proved beyond doubt, on the basis of the connected records. The petitioner could not disprove the charges, even though he was given sufficient opportunity to do so. Since all the seven charges against the petitioner had been proved, the proposed punishment was awarded and the amount involved was recovered. This cannot be said to be double punishment. Further, the appellate authority had given sufficient reasons for confirming the order of the second respondent. 8. Since all the seven charges against the petitioner had been proved, the proposed punishment was awarded and the amount involved was recovered. This cannot be said to be double punishment. Further, the appellate authority had given sufficient reasons for confirming the order of the second respondent. 8. It has also been submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the petitioner had already retired from service and his retiral benefits would have already been settled. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Further, the petitioner had already retired from service and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the averments made on behalf of the respondents. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.