YATINDRA SINGH AND RAN VIJAI SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was District Homeopathic Medical Officer, Azamgarh. He was given charge sheet on 12. 2. 2002 leveling four charges against him. The petitioner filed his reply and thereafter an enquiry report was submitted on 8. 1. 2003. The petitioner was awarded a censure entry and his integrity was withheld by the order dated 21st May, 2003. The petitioner filed representation against the same, it was rejected on 25th October, 2005. In pursuance to the enquiry report the petitioner was also punished by the order dated 25th October, 2005 by which his integrity and one increment was withheld. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) BY the enquiry report the charge No. 1 and charge No. 4 were partly proved. Charge No. 1 was that the petitioner had not deducted the income tax from his salary at source. ( 4 ) THE enquiry officer recorded the finding that the petitioner had deposited the income tax in the Bank and there was no financial loss. However, there was irregularity in not deducting the income tax directly at source. ( 5 ) THE charge No. 4 was that despite the rate contract the petitioner had purchased the medicines from the open market. ( 6 ) THE enquiry officer recorded the finding that the petitioner had purchased the medicines for the year 2000-2001, according to the rate contract from the notified shops. In respect of the year 1999-2000, he purchased the medicines at the contract rate but this was not done from the nominated shops. There is no finding that there was any financial loss to the Government. There is no finding that any inferior medicine was purchased. ( 7 ) IN respect of first charge, the only finding is that the petitioner should have deducted the income tax at source. In respect of 4th charge the only finding is that medicines should have been purchased from the nominated shops. There is no financial loss; no prejudice. This is merely an irregularity and at the most an advisory entry could have been given but neither the integrity of the petitioner could be stopped nor the punishment of stoppage one increment could have been awarded. The punishment awarded is not only excessive but is arbitrary. There is no financial loss; no prejudice. This is merely an irregularity and at the most an advisory entry could have been given but neither the integrity of the petitioner could be stopped nor the punishment of stoppage one increment could have been awarded. The punishment awarded is not only excessive but is arbitrary. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the orders dated 21. 5. 2003 and both the orders dated 25. 10. 2005 are quashed. The petitioner has already retired. He may be given post retiral benefits and his salary (if still due ). This may be done at an early date if possible within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case there is any delay on the part of the respondents to do so then the respondents will also pay interest at the rate of 6% after expiry of six months. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. .