Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.170014/2005/O.Na.3 dated 20.03.2006 confirming the orders of the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.534/96 A1 dated 111. 2005 and modified in Na.Ka.No.534/96 A1 dated 30.12.2005. 2. Petitioner was appointed under direct recruitment as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies and joined in the service on 04.04.1970. Subsequently he was promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar on 03.09.1993. While he was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar/Special Officer, in the TNEB Employees Cooperative Stores under the administrative control of Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (Non Credit) Madras during the period from 29.07.1991 to 212. 1994, he had committed serious irregularities and misappropriation of funds for which he was placed under suspension in Proc. Rc. 552/96 A1, dated 19.01.1996 of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (Credit) Chennai. 3. Based on the enquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983, (for short Act) disciplinary action was initiated against him and charges under rule 17 (b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rule were framed by the Deputy Registrar (Non credit) by the proceedings in Rc.138/95 CC1 dated 17.05.1996. Since Petitioner has not submitted any explanation till 10.05.1997, domestic enquiry was ordered and domestic enquiry report was submitted on 22.03.1999. The enquiry report was communicated to the writ petitioner and calling for his explanation. The writ petitioner received the domestic enquiry report on 22.06.2000 and submitted his explanation on 20.07.2000. 4. Upon examination of the charge memo, the domestic enquiry report and considering the explanation offered by the writ petitioner, the 2nd Respondent has passed impugned punishment of reduction in rank which was awarded in proceeding Rc.534/96/A1 dated 111. 2005. The modification of said proceeding was issued in proceedings Rc.534/96/A1 dated 30.12.2005 wherein the punishment in reduction in rank as punishment for 4 years and also fixing the salary in the reduced rank at Rs.6050/-. 5. Writ petitioner has preferred appeal against the order of reversion passed by the 2nd Respondent before the 1st Respondent. By proceeding in Rc.170014/2005/DA3, dated 20.03.2006, 1st Respondent has confirmed the order of 2nd Respondent awarding punishment of reversion to the writ petitioner. .6. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that as per statutory rule more particularly under F.R.29 no period has been specified while passing the order of reversion. By proceeding in Rc.170014/2005/DA3, dated 20.03.2006, 1st Respondent has confirmed the order of 2nd Respondent awarding punishment of reversion to the writ petitioner. .6. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that as per statutory rule more particularly under F.R.29 no period has been specified while passing the order of reversion. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent has become Functus Officio passed an order modifying the penalty to that of reversion to the lower post of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies for a period of 4 years and the modified order lacks jurisdiction since the authority has become Functus Officio. Further according to the Petitioner fixing the salary at Rs.6050/- in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/- amounts to double punishment and therefore the impugned orders cannot be challenged. 7. The Respondents have filed counter stating that there is no double punishment. According to the Respondents, 11 charges have been proved against the Petitioner and having regard to the nature of proved charges, the Petitioner was reverted from the post of Co-operative Sub-Registrar to the post of Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies and consequently upon his reversion his pay has been fixed at Rs.6050/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.L.Chandrakumar, has contended that as per F.R.29 while imposing punishment of reduction in rank, period of reversion has to be indicated and the impugned order is vitiated for violation of mandatory statutory rules. The learned counsel further contended that only after writ petitioner has filed appeal before the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent has passed modified order on 30.12.2005 and such modification is invalid and unsustainable. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, has contended that there was no double punishment. The learned Addl.Govt.Pleader has submitted that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is correct and that by passing modified order no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioner. The learned Addl.Govt.Pleader further submitted that having regard to nature of proved charges the impugned order of reduction in rank for a period of 4 years cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. 10. Under F.R.29 as a measure of penalty if a Government servant is reduced to a lower rank the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period. 10. Under F.R.29 as a measure of penalty if a Government servant is reduced to a lower rank the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period. F.R.29 reads as under: "If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower stage in his time-scale the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether on restoration the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent". As per Rulings (2) F.R.29 period of penalty has to be mentioned. Rulings (1)(a) reads as under: (1)(a) Every order passed by a competent authority imposing on a Government servant the penalty of reductions to a lower stage in a time scale should indicate- .(i) the date from which it will take effect and the period (in terms of years and months) for which the penalty shall be operative; .(ii) the stage in the time-scale (in terms of rupees) to which the Government servant is reduced; and (iii) the extent (in terms of years and months), if any, to which the period referred to at (i) above should operate to postpone future increments. The reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale is not permissible under the rules either for an unspecified period or as a permanent measure. Also when a Government servant is reduced to a particular stage, his pay will remain constant at that stage for the entire period of reduction. The period to be specified under (iii) should in no case exceed the period specified under (i). 11. By the order dated 111. 2005, punishment of reversion to lower rank-Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies was imposed on the Petitioner. In the order dated 111. 2005, no specific period was mentioned as contemplated under Ruling 2 F.R.29 period was not mentioned. 12. Stating period of punishment of reduction in the rank and fixing the pay of Rs.6050/-in the time scale of pay Rs.5000-150-8000/-modified order was passed by the 2nd Respondent modifying the earlier order. The contention of the Petitioner is that after passing the order of punishment the disciplinary authority has become Functus Officio and had no further authority to modify that order and the impugned order dated 30.12.2005, lacks jurisdiction. 13. The contention of the Petitioner is that after passing the order of punishment the disciplinary authority has become Functus Officio and had no further authority to modify that order and the impugned order dated 30.12.2005, lacks jurisdiction. 13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner has preferred statutory appeal dated 012. 2005, inter-alia contending that the penalty is imposed as per statutory rules and only after filing of statutory appeal, the modified order dated 30.12.2005, came to be passed. The learned counsel further urged that the impugned modified order was passed only to get over serious infirmity in the earlier order dated 111. 2005. 14. The contention that after passing the order imposing punishment the disciplinary authority has become Functus Officio is only a technical objection. Noticing the defect in the earlier order the 1st Respondent has passed the modified order and it cannot be said that it lacks jurisdiction. In case of such objection, doctrine of "Prejudice" can be applied. When the Petitioner faces punishment of reduction in rank, seldom can he raise objection for the modified order mentioning period and fixing the salary. 15. Apart from mentioning the period of reduction in rank the impugned modified order also fixes the salary of the Petitioner in the reduced rank of Senior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. The impugned order reads as under: 16. The learned counsel for the Petitioner forcibly contended that the punishment can be either reduction of rank or reduction in lower time scale of pay and while so the impugned order amounts to double punishment viz., both reduction in rank and reduction in time scale of pay. 17. The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that when charges were framed under Rule 17 (b) and when punishment of reduction in rank was awarded to the delinquent, consequent upon his reversion his pay was reduced to Rs.6050/- in the time scale of pay or Rs.5000-150-8000/-and the same cannot be construed as double punishment. 18. As pointed out earlier when as a measure of penalty Government servant is reduced to lower rank his pay has to be fixed and that pay will remain constant for the entire period of reduction. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner since such contention over looks purport of Rulings (2) F.R.29. 19. As pointed out earlier when as a measure of penalty Government servant is reduced to lower rank his pay has to be fixed and that pay will remain constant for the entire period of reduction. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner since such contention over looks purport of Rulings (2) F.R.29. 19. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment based on Section 81 enquiry report as many as 26 charges were framed against the Petitioner out of 26 charges 11 charges were held proved. The charges relate to certain omissions and commissions while the Petitioner was working as Co-opeative Societies Sub-Registrar in TNEB Employees Co-operative Stores. Power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of the Judicial review. The power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the punishment and penalty imposed by the authority shocks the conscience of the High court. 20. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1955 (6) SCC 749, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "... While exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High court, it would appropriately mould the relief, either by directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. Reliance has also been place on Indian Oil corporation Limited vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, 1997(3) SCC 72 , the Honble Supreme court has held that the court would not interfere unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate." 21. In (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), [Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "15. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesburys (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. "16. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations, it may in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed." "17. The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and another v. K.G.Soni 2006 (6) Supreme 389 : 2006 III LLJ 802 (SC) following Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and others v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005-I-LLJ-730 (SC)." 22. The Petitioner has been retained in service it is stated that the Petitioner has put in 27 years of service. Having regard to nature of charges and proved misconduct and keeping in view of the past records of the Petitioner punishment of reduction in rank for 4 years appears to be disproportionate. The punishment of reduction in rank for 4 years is reduced to period of 2 years fixing the pay at Rs.6050/-in the time scale of pay Rs.5000-150-8000/-. 23. Consequent upon his reversion, in proceedings Rc.14498/04/A5, dated 22.03.2006, posting him as Senior Inspector, in the office of Director of Fisheries in the vacant post. The posting order was received by the Petitioner on 27.03.2006. But the Petitioner did not join the new post and the Deputy Director of Milk Co-operative Audit, in letter Rc.2969/05/A dated 27.02.2007 has requested to take action against the Petitioner. The posting order was received by the Petitioner on 27.03.2006. But the Petitioner did not join the new post and the Deputy Director of Milk Co-operative Audit, in letter Rc.2969/05/A dated 27.02.2007 has requested to take action against the Petitioner. Alleging that the Petitioner neither joined in the new post nor submitted any leave letter charges under 17 (b) of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies (D & A Rules) have been framed against the Petitioner in Prc.Rc.534/96/A1, dated 23.06.2008. Charge memo was served to the wife of the Petitioner on 11.07.2008 for which the Petitioner has submitted his explanation stating that writ petition is pending disposal and hence requesting to defer further action on the charge memo issued to him. 24. Drawing attention of Court to the charge memo issued to the Petitioner, learned Addl.Govt.pleader has submitted that inspite of issuance of findings order, petitioner has not chosen to join in the new post and further the Respondents have rightly framed charge against the Petitioner. It was further submitted that the Petitioner having deliberately evaded to join in the new post the conduct of the Petitioner has to be taken note of. 25. At the time when the writ petition was admitted, an interim stay was granted but instead of granting interim stay of the operation of the impugned punishment, by the order dated 26.04.2006, Justice D.Murugesan has passed an interim stay as under: "Interim stay of the operation of the impugned order of punishment reducing the salary of the Petitioner from Rs.6050/- to Rs.5000/-" 26. Later the said order came to be clarified by the order dated 28.09.2006 as under: "5. Therefore, it is just and necessary to modify the order dated 26.04.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.13384 of 2006 and clarify the position that while there is no stay in operation as against the order of punishment insofar as it related to reducing the rank of the Petitioner from the post of Co-operative Sub-Registrar to Senior Grade Inspector, insofar as "the scale of pay of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents, even in the reduced post should protect the pay of the petitioner as was drawn by him in the scale applicable to the Senior Inspector, namely Rs.5000-150-8000. If by any chance, the salary drawn by the Petitioner exceeded the maximum of the scale applicable to the Senior Grade Inspector, at least, the maximum of that pay in that scale should be protected to the Petitioner." 27. In view of the stay order granted by this court, Petitioner might have not reported for duty as he has filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order of punishment. It appears that Petitioner has submitted his explanation for the charge memo Na.Ka.No.534/96/A1 dated 23.06.2008 the Petitioner has submitted his representation mentioning the pendency of the writ petition W.P.No.11767/2006 and requested to stop further action on the charge memo issued against him. Respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the explanation submitted by the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in Na.Ka.No.534/96/A1 dated 23.06.2008. 28. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed with the following directions. " The punishment of reduction in rank for a period of 4 years is reduced to 2 years. " As per the impugned order pay of the Petitioner in the reverted post is shall be at Rs.6050/- in the time scale of pay Rs.5000-150-8000. " The Respondents are directed to issue postings order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of postings orders the Petitioner shall immediately join the duty within the permissible time as per rules. " On Petitioners rejoining duty, the Respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the explanation of the Petitioner in the light of the interim order passed by this Court dated 24. 2006 and 29. 2006 and pass orders in accordance with law " While passing orders under the Proceedings in Na.Ka.534/96/A1 dated 26. 2008, Respondents 1 and 2 shall also pass appropriate orders in respect of the period during which the Petitioner was out of duty. 28. No costs. Consequently W.V.M.P.No.470/2007 is closed.