Judgment :- The petitioner who habitually puts in late attendance and who has not been doing any work is aggrieved by the fact of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on him. 2. In fact, the respondent has clearly indicated that this will not affect his pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given reasons for his absence and that it is only because of his wife was not well that there was some late attendance and that should be condoned. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 4. The charges leveled against the petitioner shows that the petitioner does not have any notion of discipline in discharge of his duties. “CHARGE – I That Thiru B. Ponnyusamy, while functioning as Section Officer during the period from 21.01.2002 to 08.05.2002 in Rural Development (E3) Department, have failed to do the duties of Section Officer prescribed in Para No.298 of SOM and never take efforts to put up files to the higher Officers and became helpless. CHARGE – II That during the aforesaid period while functioning in the aforesaid Department, Thiru B.Ponnusamy have never take efforts to put up even a single file from the seat of ASO.II of Rural Development (E.III) Department on 29.01.2002, 04.02.2002, 06.02.2002 to 09.02.2002, 12.02.2002, 14.02.2002, 15.02.2002, 19.02.2002 to 21.02.2002, 28.02.2002, 01.03.2002, 05.03.2002 to 08.03.2002, 18.03.2002, 19.03.2002, 27.03.2002, 28.03.2002, 08.04.2002, 11.04.2002, 16.04.2002, 17.04.2002, 19.04.2002, 23.04.2002, 26.04.2002, 30.04.2002 & 03.05.2002. CHARGE – III That during the aforesaid period while functioning in the aforesaid Department Thiru B.Ponnusamy have the habit of attending Office late or not attending the office without prior permission regularly as follows:- 5. No ground has been raised alleging illegality in the conduct of enquiry. The enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law and punishment has been imposed. The order shows that the petitioner has not been discharging the basic duties as required. His only plea is some indulgence is to be shown. It is shocking to see the number of days, on which the petitioner has not put up even one file. The review filed was rejected since no material evidence was produced to review the case. In fact, the order shows that the punishment “will not affect his pension”. Work ethics is something that needs to be inculcated in everyone. It is shocking to see the number of days, on which the petitioner has not put up even one file. The review filed was rejected since no material evidence was produced to review the case. In fact, the order shows that the punishment “will not affect his pension”. Work ethics is something that needs to be inculcated in everyone. No one has a right to treat his job as a sinecure. Not only has the petitioner’s appeal has been considered, the review has also been considered. I see no reason to interfere with this order. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.