Judgment :- 2. Briefly stated case of the Petitioner is as follows:- (i) Petitioner who was working as Assistant in the office of Dean, Government Raja Mirasudar Hospital, Thanjavur along with P.Murali -Junior Assistant and A.Dhanabalan - Office Assistant have misappropriated by creating vouchers as if they have paid the incentive amount of Rs.130/- each to 13 persons who undergone the Family Planning Operation at Government Raja Mirasudar Hospital, Thanjavur. (ii) On the complaint from K.Rama, disciplinary action was initiated by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner by framing four charges :-(1) Petitioner has grossly failed in her duties in not disbursing the amount to the persons concerned and created false records as if compensation amount for 13 persons has been disbursed; (2) Petitioner while discharging her duties, acted against the Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules; (3) Petitioner has failed to identify the persons who undergone Family Planning Operation and misappropriated the compensation amount by misguiding the Project Director, Family Welfare Programme, Government Raja Mirasudar Hospital, Thanjavur; (4) Petitioner has acted in her own accord and failed to pay compensation to the concerned persons which resulted the public to undergone Family Planning Operation and thus spoiled the National Scheme. (iii) Petitioner submitted her explanation to the Charge Memo dated 01. 1995 issued by the 1st Respondent. Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer held that the alleged signature obtained from the concerned persons found in the vouchers are not tallied with the original signatures and by preparing bogus vouchers, Petitioner and other delinquent have misappropriated the compensation payable to the persons concerned who undergone Family Planning Operation. (iv) On receipt of further representation from the Petitioner and on examination of the records with connected papers, 2nd Respondent has imposed punishment of reduction to the lower time scale of pay for a period of 3 years. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd Respondent, Petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Government and the same is still pending. Challenging the impugned punishment, Petitioner has filed O.A.No.4252/2002 before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the same has been transferred to this Court and taken as Writ Petition. .3. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd Respondent, Petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Government and the same is still pending. Challenging the impugned punishment, Petitioner has filed O.A.No.4252/2002 before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the same has been transferred to this Court and taken as Writ Petition. .3. Resisting the Petition, Respondents have filed counter stating that after following the procedures laid down under rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2nd Respondent has imposed the punishment of reduction to the lower time scale of pay for a period of 3 years to the Petitioner. It is averred that similar punishment was also imposed upon the co-delinquent P.Murali - Junior Assistant. Besides, 2nd Respondent has imposed punishment of removal from service of another co-delinquent P. Dhanabalan – Office Assistant. According to the Respondents, before exhausting the remedies from the appeal preferred by the Petitioner to the Government, Petitioner has filed the Original Application/Writ Petition. 4. Challenging the impugned punishment awarded by the 2nd Respondent, Mr. P.Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it is case of no evidence and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that neither the Complainant Rama nor other witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges and while so, the Enquiry Officer erred in finding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Learned Senior Counsel mainly argued that the co-delinquent Dhanapalan had admitted his misconduct and while so, Petitioner who was then working as Assistant ought to have been absolved from the charges. 5. Ms. Geetha Thamaraiselvan, Government Advocate has submitted that there is no dispute regarding mode of conducting the enquiry. Learned Government Advocate further contended that all three delinquents were dealt with and co-delinquent Dhanabalan was removed from service. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that there was no delay in initiating the departmental enquiry. 6. Petitioner was working as Assistant in Family Welfare Programme, Government Raja Mirasudar Hospital, Thanjavur. She was entrusted with the work of disbursement of Government compensation amount to the patients who have undergone sterilization. On the complaint from the patients who have not received the Government compensation amount and that Government compensation amount payable to them was misappropriated by creating bogus vouchers of having paid the amount. .7. As pointed out earlier, four charges were framed against the Petitioner. On the complaint from the patients who have not received the Government compensation amount and that Government compensation amount payable to them was misappropriated by creating bogus vouchers of having paid the amount. .7. As pointed out earlier, four charges were framed against the Petitioner. Dhanabalan – Office Assistant and Murali – Record Clerk were also charged for the same alleged misappropriation. After following the procedure laid down under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Enquiry Officer/Director of Medical Education held that the charges are proved. Having regard to the nature of charges, Director of Medical Education imposed punishment of reduction to the lower time scale of pay for a period of three years on the Petitioner. Petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Government. Even when the appeal was under process at the Directorate level, Petitioner has filed O.A.No.4252/2002 before TAT, Chennai [W.P.No.6966/2007] and challenged the punishment, even without awaiting the out come of the result in the appeal. 8. Co-delinquent Dhanabalan had admitted his guilt. Stating what he has done, Dhanabalan pleaded for lesser punishment. Dhanabalan was imposed punishment of dismissal from service. He has challenged the same by filing an appeal. In G.O.(D) No.1091 Public Health and Family Welfare Dept. dated 012. 2005, punishment of dismissal from service was modified as reduction of lower time scale of pay for a period of three years. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has made the following submissions:- "Petitioner had served for more than 35 years and that she had blemishless service. "Person who was responsible for the alleged misconduct viz., Office Assistant Dhanabalan has admitted his misconduct and while so, Petitioner cannot be held responsible. Since the appeal preferred by the Petitioner is pending, it is for the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the above submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. 10. Drawing Courts attention to the records, learned Senior Counsel raised contention that it is the case of no evidence. This court does not propose to go into merits of the matter. When the appeal was preferred and the same is pending, exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot re-appreciate or re-appraise the evidence recorded. Since efficacious alternative remedy is available and the appeal is also pending before the Government, it would be appropriate the Government to expedite the disposal of the appeal. 11. When the appeal was preferred and the same is pending, exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot re-appreciate or re-appraise the evidence recorded. Since efficacious alternative remedy is available and the appeal is also pending before the Government, it would be appropriate the Government to expedite the disposal of the appeal. 11. It is stated that Petitioner is about to retire in May 2009. Since the Petitioner is about to retire shortly, suitable directions are to be issued to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal by fixing the time frame. 12. Learned Senior Counsel has brought to the notice of the Court to G.O. (D) No.1091 Public Health and Family Welfare Department dated 012. 2005 whereby punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the co-delinquent Dhanabalan was modified as one of reduction in scale of pay for a period of three years. When the Appellate Authority considers the appeal filed by the Petitioner, Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the lenient taken in favour of co-delinquent Dhanabalan. It is further observed that the Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the long service of the Petitioner as well as the fact that Petitioner is likely to retire shortly. 13. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- "Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal filed by the Petitioner and dispose the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. "If the copy of appeal memo is not available, Petitioner shall submit appeal memo to the Appellate Authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. "Appellate Authority shall afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner before disposing the appeal. Appellate Authority shall take into account the long service of the Petitioner and the view taken by the Appellate Authority in respect of co-delinquent Dhanabalan.