Judgment :- The petitioner joined the service in the year 1965 and subsequently, he was promoted as Basic Health Worker and on 24.03.1989, he was further promoted as Multipurpose Health Supervisor. When he was working at Primary Health Centre at T. Ramanathapuram Block, he availed Leave Travel Concession for the block year 19891992 for himself and his family members and availed leave from 12.06.1992 to 15.06.1992. He also received an advance of Rs.4,000/- for meeting the traveling expenses. On 21.06.1992, he submitted the bills and vouchers and requested the department to disburse the remaining amount, but the balance amount claimed by him was rejected on the ground that he traveled from M. Kallupatti to Tirupathi both ways and since Tirupathi is situate out of State, his claim cannot be considered. Subsequently, on 23.03.1993, the second respondent issued an order to recover the advance amount paid to the petitioner in 20 monthly instalments and the same was also recovered from his salary. In the meantime, on 06.05.1994, a charge memo was issued to him containing four charges to the effect that (i) he cheated the Government by giving false declaration of family members and that he had produced bills without performing actual journey (ii) he has included his father as if he performed journey with him who expired 34 years back on 20.07.1958 (iii) he attached the Medical Officer, Primary health Centre and misbehaved with him when the review meeting was conducted on 30.03.1993 and (iv) he was found to be writing letters after letters against the higher officials of the department and leveling unwanted allegations against them. 2. On 06.12.1994, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. An enquiry officer was appointed who conducted enquiry and submitted his report dated 16.05.1997 to the first respondent holding that the charges were not proved. Thereafter, the first respondent issued second show cause notice dated 14.08.1998 stating that he disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the same. On 24.12.1998, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation and thereafter, on 12.06.1990, the first respondent passed the order of punishment imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. On 24.12.1998, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation and thereafter, on 12.06.1990, the first respondent passed the order of punishment imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No.44725 of 2006. 3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer held that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, however, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings and found that only charges 1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to submit his further explanation, which was also submitted but without considering the same, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect came to be passed. It is also submitted that for the very same set of charges, a criminal complaint was given by the Department which ultimately ended in acquittal by this Court on 27.08.2008 by quashing the very criminal proceedings itself. In the meantime, on 31.12.2003, the petitioner retired from service. Even then, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service and he was kept under suspension indefinitely. Only after the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6063 of 2006 dated 27.02.2008, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service by proceedings dated 05.12.2008 of the first respondent. As far as the present case is concerned, the respondents have imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect and it will affect the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. Already, recovery order was passed and the amount was recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, departmental proceedings were initiated in which punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was imposed. That apart, the petitioner was also prosecuted by criminal proceedings which ultimately ended in his favour on 27.02.2008. Already, recovery order was passed and the amount was recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, departmental proceedings were initiated in which punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was imposed. That apart, the petitioner was also prosecuted by criminal proceedings which ultimately ended in his favour on 27.02.2008. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had suffered much and the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is harsh and excessive inasmuch as it affects the terminal benefits of the petitioner and prayed for modification of the punishment so as to enable the petitioner to get retirement benefits. 4. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned Government Advocate and perused the materials on record. 5. It is to be seen whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. In this background, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Union of India v. K.G. Soni) ( 2006 (6) SCC 794 ) it was held in Para Nos.14 and 15 as follows:- 14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator’s 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 Wednesbury case 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 the decision-making process and not the decision. 15. To put it 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 the 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. 6. Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the 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. 6. In the above decision, it was categorically held by the Honourable Supreme Court that unless the punishment imposed is shocking to the conscience of the Courts, the Courts should not interfere with the punishment imposed by the administrators. 7. In this case, originally amount was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner’s salary in 20 instalments which was also recovered. Subsequently, he was proceeded with departmentally. For the same set of charge, he was also prosecuted in the Criminal Court. When he attained the age of superannuation, he was not allowed to retire and only after the order dated 27.02.2008 passed by this Court quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, an order dated 05.12.2008 was passed allowing the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.12.2003. Moreover, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the enquiry officer has held that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, however, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the views of the enquiry officer and concluded that only charges 1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, a lenient view can be taken in order to render complete justice. 8. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is a bit harsh, that too when it affects the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Therefore I am inclined to interfere with the punishment. Accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is modified into one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect so as to enable the petitioner to get his retirement benefits. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.