Judgment :- Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 11. 2007 imposing punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Muthampalayam, by the Commissioner, Koliyanoor Panchayat Union, by order-dated 22. 1976. Petitioner was transferred to various places and he was promoted as Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Anangkooran Kuchipalayam, Villupuram District, and he is now working as Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thathampalayam. According to the petitioner, he has got unblemished record of service and while he was serving in Anangkooran Kuchipalayam Panchayat Union Elementary School, there was only three students in the school and due to his efforts, the strength of the school was increased to 35. The mid-day meal scheme was not available in the school and the said scheme was also implemented in the school at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner further states that for maintaining discipline in the school, he imposed certain conditions and occasionally he used to make personal visit to each class and ask questions relating to the subject, which was being taught. One student by name Kanimozhi did not answer a question and therefore petitioner scolded the said student. According to the petitioner, due to the same, the villagers of Anangkooran Kuchipalayam made a representation to the second respondent to take action against the petitioner, based on which petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21. 2007 by the first respondent. Charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against the petitioner, which reads as follows: "1. The petitioner misbehaved with one Kanimozhi, who is studying 5th standard in the school. 2. The petitioner was absented himself on 1. 2007 without prior intimation. 3. The petitioner corrected entries as if he was present in the school, when actually not present himself on that day." 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the said charges on 2. 2007. According to the petitioner, villagers, on coming to know about the petitioners suspension, submitted a representation on 2. 2007 to the first respondent and prayed for revocation of suspension. Petitioner was issued with a questionaire, which was also filled up by the petitioner in April 2007. On 29. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the said charges on 2. 2007. According to the petitioner, villagers, on coming to know about the petitioners suspension, submitted a representation on 2. 2007 to the first respondent and prayed for revocation of suspension. Petitioner was issued with a questionaire, which was also filled up by the petitioner in April 2007. On 29. 2007, the suspension order was revoked and the petitioner was transferred to the Panchayat Union Middle School as Headmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School, Melpathi, Koliyanoor Panchayat, with a direction to extend his co-operation for the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents. On 11. 2007 petitioner was transferred to Panchayat Union Elementary School, Thathampalayam as Headmaster and now he is working in the said School. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry with regard to the above three charges, the first respondent passed an order of punishment by order dated 11. 2007, withholding one increment with cumulative effect. 4. Since a specific stand was taken in this writ petition stating that without conducting enquiry petitioner was punished, when the writ petition was posted for admission on 1. 2008, the Government Advocate was directed to take notice and to produce the file and the Government Advocate also produced the file on 21. 2008. I have perused the file containing 174 pages. .5. Before placing the petitioner under suspension, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Koliaynoor made a surprise inspection on 1. 2007 and conducted preliminary enquiry with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is stated in the said preliminary enquiry report of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer that the complaints were received from the villagers, human rights activists, the vice Chairman of the Village Panchayat, Womens self-help group President, the Sweeper of the school, Noon-meal Organiser, the School Teacher, the 5th standard student Kanimozhi, her mother and certain villagers. It is further stated in the prliminary enquiry report that the villagers stated that the petitioner misbehaved with the 5th standard student Kanimozhi and the petitioner shall not be permitted to work in the said school and if he is permitted to work in the said school, the villagers may not send their children to the school. Based on the same, a prima facie decision was arrived by the first respondent on 1. 2007. Based on the same, a prima facie decision was arrived by the first respondent on 1. 2007. The statement of the victim girl, namely Kanimozhi finds a place in the file stating the actual act of misbehaviour. The mother of the victim girl also has given statement on 1. 2007, apart from the statement given by others as stated supra. Based on the preliminary enquiry report, the charge memo was framed under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the proceedings of the first respondent with regard to the above referred three charges. 6. The preliminary enquiry report dated 1. 2007 was served along with other documents. After the order of suspension, petitioner submitted a representation dated 2. 2007 to revoke the order of suspension and also expressed his willingness to be transferred to Anangkooran, Kuchipalayam Panchayat Union Elementary School. Enquiry was conducted against the charges on 24. 2007, wherein the petitioner denied the charges and he was satisfied with the procedure adopted during the enquiry and signed in the enquiry proceedings expressing his satisfaction. The Director of Elementary Education through his proceeding dated 28. 2007 ordered to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner and also to complete the disciplinary proceeding within one week. On 19. 2007, also the victim girl gave a statement. Victims mother gave a statement reiterating the earlier statement given during the preliminary enquiry. Villagers namely C.Selvaraj, N.Kamala also gave statements reiterating the statement given during the preliminary enquiry and the teacher named R.Mahalakshmi also gave statement reiterating the same. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Koliyanoor was also present during the time of enquiry. Subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner was also paid. An enquiry report was drawn by the first respondent. The suspension order was revoked on 29. 2007 and the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the enquiry and he was transferred to Panchayat Union Middle School, Melpathy, Koliyanoor Union. In the enquiry, finding was given that charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, pursuant to which the impugned punishment was ordered. .7. From the above narrated facts, based on the file produced by the respondents, I am satisfied that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and the statements were obtained from the victim girl as well as other persons, not only during the preliminary enquiry but also during final enquiry. .7. From the above narrated facts, based on the file produced by the respondents, I am satisfied that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and the statements were obtained from the victim girl as well as other persons, not only during the preliminary enquiry but also during final enquiry. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order cannot be sustained. First charge levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature. However very lenient view was taken and increment was withheld for one year with cumulative effect and the same cannot be treated as irrational or arbitrary. .8. The scope of interference with regard to the power of punishment by the disciplinary authority is well settled. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 257 (Union of India v. S.S.Ahluwalia), in paragraph 8 held as follows: ."8. .............. The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty. ..........." .9. Petitioner, who is Headmaster of the school is also a teacher. The role of a Teacher in the society is explained by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 2 SCC 534 (Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti). In paragraph 12, the Supreme Court observed thus, ."12. ... His/her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher. The question arises whether the conduct of the appellant is befitting with such higher responsibilities and as he by his conduct betrayed the trust and forfeited the faith whether he would be entitled to the full-fledged enquiry as demanded by him? The fallen standard of the appellant is the tip of the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a noble and learned profession; it is for each teacher and collectively their body to stem the rot to sustain the faith of the society reposed in them. The fallen standard of the appellant is the tip of the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a noble and learned profession; it is for each teacher and collectively their body to stem the rot to sustain the faith of the society reposed in them. Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the coffin. ...." 10. From the above-referred judgment it is abundantly clear that conducting regular enquiry is not mandatory in a case of this nature. However, in this case, not only the preliminary enquiry, but also final regular enquiry was also conducted as could be seen from the file. Therefore, there is no procedural infirmity as alleged by the petitioner. 11. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.