Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, who was working as Executive Officer in Arulmighu Chokkanathasami Koil, Ammapettai, was issued with a charge memo dated 27.02.1998. On receipt of the charge memo, a reply dated 07.03.1998 was sent by the petitioner. For the same set of charges, another charge memo dated 07.04.1998 was issued for which also the petitioner submitted his reply on 27.04.1998. While so, at the fag end of the petitioners retirement date namely 30.04.2000, an order dated 10.12.1999 was issued by the respondent removing him from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 45350 of 2006. 2. The petitioner would contend that the enquiry officer has given findings in excess of the charges and the impugned order has been passed by the respondent in violation of principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the impugned order would amount to double jeopardy inasmuch the impugned order has been passed not only on the basis of the charge memo dated 27.02.1998 and 07.04.1998 but for the allegations for which already punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. By virtue of the impugned order removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner was compelled to forgo his terminal benefits for the 28 years of service rendered by him, hence, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. 3. The respondent filed a detailed reply affidavit stating that while the petitioner was working as Executive Officer, several complaints have been received and therefore, the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department verified the records on the basis of the report given by the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE Department. Since certain irregularities have been committed by the petitioner, which are grave in nature, charges were framed against him under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. An enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry and submitted his report. The respondent, after taking into consideration the report of the enquiry officer and other available materials came to the conclusion that the irregularities were grave in nature and therefore imposed the punishment of removal from service. An enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry and submitted his report. The respondent, after taking into consideration the report of the enquiry officer and other available materials came to the conclusion that the irregularities were grave in nature and therefore imposed the punishment of removal from service. Even the first charge levelled against the petitioner clearly states that the petitioner had not remitted the amount in the bank but made several cash payment instead of cheque payment, which is against the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. Further, even when the petitioner was having cash in hand, he withdrew amount and misappropriated the same. It was also contended that the petitioner had created fabricated vouchers for Rs.10750/-towards miscellaneous expenses and withdrawn a further sum of Rs.6,900/-. The enquiry officer found that inspite of money in his hand, it is not known how he has withdrawn amount from the bank and produced false vouchers. The conduct of the petitioner in further making mudslinging averments against the department is illegal especially when the petitioner has stated that he was not collecting donation at the Joint Commissioners native place for construction of a temple, which would clearly show that the petitioner is trying to make some allegation against others. In any event, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to putforth his defence, he has participated in the enquiry and the principles of natural justice have been adhered to, hence, the order of removal from service passed by the respondent is justifiable. 4. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner would categorically state that originally, by a charge memo dated 27.02.1998, nine charges have been framed against the petitioner. Again, on 07.04.1998, another charge memo was issued containing three charges. According to the petitioner, in the enquiry conducted by the department, three witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked. It is only a surmise that he should have embezzled or misappropriated the amount. In the enquiry officer report, it was stated that "ifahly; vd;W fUjf;TLk;/" Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer is only on the basis of surmises, but it has been summarily accepted by the disciplinary authority, hence, the punishment is arbitrary and illegal. Moreover, before the enquiry officer, the petitioner himself admitted that he kept money with him, thereafter, he withdrew money from the bank for miscellaneous expenses. Moreover, before the enquiry officer, the petitioner himself admitted that he kept money with him, thereafter, he withdrew money from the bank for miscellaneous expenses. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, merely the petitioner was keeping money in his hands would not amount to misappropriation. It is further submitted that after submission of reply to the charge memo, the enquiry conducted the enquiry on 25.08.1998 and on 18.01.1999, the enquiry officer submitted his report. On 07.05.1999, the petitioner was given copy of the report of the enquiry officer, for which also, the petitioner submitted his reply on 12.05.1999. On 15.09.1998, a personal enquiry was granted to the petitioner and on 10.12.1999, the impugned order of punishment was given at the fag end of the petitioners retirement. Therefore, on the ground of delay, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 5. In the order of punishment, after considering the various findings, the disciplinary authority concluded that the charges 1 to 9 made in charge memo dated 27.02.1998 and the three charges made in additional charge memo dated 07.04.1998 were held proved. The punishing authority taken into consideration the evidence on record and the findings of the enquiry officer and has given a detailed finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature especially in misappropriating the funds and keeping it in his hands in excess; issuing false vouchers and tampering the records and registers. It was also found that an Executive Officer, who is supposed to maintain and safeguard the funds of the temple has misused his powers by discarding the directions and circulars given by the Department and taken action independently without adhering to the Rules and Regulations. The disciplinary authority has also stated that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of the temple and used it for his personal use. After finding the same, the punishing authority also brought out that on more than one occasion, the petitioner was suspended or imposed with punishment for misappropriation of funds or for derliction of duty. Therefore, for embezzlement of funds, negligence and carelessness in duty, forging of accounts and documents, disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors, the petitioner was found to be guilty and he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service. In fact, the petitioner was 57 years even at the time when he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. Therefore, for embezzlement of funds, negligence and carelessness in duty, forging of accounts and documents, disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors, the petitioner was found to be guilty and he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service. In fact, the petitioner was 57 years even at the time when he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. Even if he continued in service, he would have now retired. Taking into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner, which are serious in nature and the fact that the enquiry was conducted by the respondent in accordance with the procedure laid down, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves punishment. But at the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the long number of 28 years of service rendered by the petitioner in the department, the punishment may be modified into one of compulsory retirement so as to enable the petitioner to get some benefits. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. In this case, even though the charge memos were issued during February and April 1998 alleging misappropriation and embezzlements of funds and enquiry was conducted, just three months prior to the retirement of the petitioner, he was removed from service. Furthermore, the punishment is a bit harsh and excessive considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had put in 28 years of service in the department and considering the long number of years of service put in by the petitioner, I am inclined to modify the punishment into one of compulsory retirement so as to enable the petitioner, who is presently 67 years, to get some benefits. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified into one of compulsory retirement. The writ petition is allowed only in so far as the modification of punishment is concerned. No costs.