Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has challenged the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed by the 1st respondent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent on various grounds. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Village Health Nurse in the 1st respondent department on 313.03.82. Subsequently, she was promoted as Sector Health Nurse on 11.10.88. While serving as Sector Health Nurse at Kandamanady, there was some misunderstanding with one Tmt.Grace, Village Health Nurse, who, according to the petitioner, used to create nuisance in the functioning of the Public Health Centre and Sub-Centres. When the said Tmt.Grace, Village Health Nurse, made a complaint, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 23.08.96 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by framing the following charges:- i. She has misbehaved with Tmt.Grace, Village Health Nurse and other Village Health Nurses of the Primary Health Centre, Kandamanady. ii. She has beaten Tamilarasi, Village Health Nurse on her head. Iii. She has abused the Village Health Nurses using derogatory words during review meetings. In response to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 11.09.96 alleging that the charges mentioned in the show cause notice are contrary to the truth and that Tmt.Grace, Village Health Nurse, had also sent number of petitions against the petitioner to the Director and also abused the petitioner using indecent words. Since the said Tmt.Grace is the association leader, she has mobilised all the Village Health Nurses and made them to give false statements with a view to transfer the petitioner from that place. After receiving the explanation offered by the petitioner, the same being not convincing, she was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. As against that, an appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent/Government. The Government also without considering the case of the petitioner, in GO.D.No.1273, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.09.98, rejected the appeal of the petitioner as vague and devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Original Application came to be filed challenging the imposition of punishment. 3. The Government also without considering the case of the petitioner, in GO.D.No.1273, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.09.98, rejected the appeal of the petitioner as vague and devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Original Application came to be filed challenging the imposition of punishment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the imposition of impugned punishment straightaway, without holding proper enquiry, is unjust, illegal and unsustainable in law, moreso, the impugned punishment was imposed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself properly in the departmental proceedings. Further, the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of the enquiry conducted by the Additional Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the impugned punishment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that when number of complaints were received from various persons against the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, which is not only on the basis of various complaints, but also on the complaint filed by the Village Health Nurses Association. During the preliminary enquiry conducted on 01.08.95, 9 out of 11 Village Health Nurses, consistently stated that the petitioner abused them during the review meeting and Tmt.Tamilarasi, Village Health Nurse, also stated that the petitioner had beaten her on her head. It is further submitted that the petitioner also, in her written explanation, admitted the fact that she just touched on her head. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry, a charge memo was issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation. In the said explanation, the petitioner admitted the fact that she touched Tmt.Tamilarasi, Village Health Nurse, on her head. The 1st respondent, after examining the preliminary enquiry report, being satisfied with the charges made against the petitioner, awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect on the petitioner. The said order of punishment was subsequently, on appeal confirmed by the Government in GO.D.No.1273, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.09.98, holding specifically that the appeal was devoid of merits. The said order of punishment was subsequently, on appeal confirmed by the Government in GO.D.No.1273, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.09.98, holding specifically that the appeal was devoid of merits. As against that, the present OA filed has no legal basis to stand, since the petitioner has shown very bad misbehaviour towards Village Health Nurses and also given room for various complaints by several Village Health Nurses of primary health centres and also complaints given by Tamil Nadu Village Health Nurses Association and therefore, the respondents have rightly dealt with the petitioner by issuing charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In such circumstances, it was pleaded that no interference by this Court is warranted with the impugned punishment imposed on the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner has given room for not one complaint during her tenure as Sector Health Nurse at Primary Health Centre, Kandamanady, but several complaints were received by the 1st respondent from the Village Health Nurses of primary health centre, complaining about the misbehaviour of the petitioner. Above all, the Tamil Nadu Village Health Nurses Association also made a representation dated 13.03.95 complaining about the misbehaviour of the petitioner with several other Village Health Nurses. Therefore, a preliminary enquiry was ordered on 01.08.95. During the course of enquiry, 9 out of 11 Village Health Nurses, deposed against the petitioner stating that she had abused them during the review meeting and one Tmt.Tamilarasi, Village Health Nurse, also specifically made a complaint that the petitioner had beaten her on her head. The explanation submitted by the petitioner also revealed her admission of delinquency levelled against her by Tmt.Tamilarasi, as the petitioner had admitted in her written statement that she only touched Tmt. Tamilarasi on her head, but not beaten her. When the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation to the enquiry report dated 03.08.95, in her explanation dated 16.02.96, while denying the charges, has failed to give acceptable explanation as to why she happened to touch Tmt. Tamilarasis head in the presence of other Village Health Nurses. When 9 out of 11 Village Health Nurses consistently deposed against the petitioner complaining that the petitioner abused them during the review meetings and also beaten Tmt. Tamilarasis head in the presence of other Village Health Nurses. When 9 out of 11 Village Health Nurses consistently deposed against the petitioner complaining that the petitioner abused them during the review meetings and also beaten Tmt. Tamilarasi, in their presence, the first respondent, while considering the preliminary report and the explanation dated 16.02.96 submitted by the petitioner, came to the right conclusion that the petitioners written explanation holds no water to dismiss the charges made against the petitioner. Therefore, the 1st respondent, accepting the preliminary report submitted by the enquiry officer, the evidence of the village Health Nurses, after satisfying himself, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner also filed appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, having seen no ground to interfere with the imposition of punishment, rejected the appeal of the petitioner as vague and devoid of merits and passed the final order in GO.D.No.1273, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.09.98. When disciplinary proceedings are initiated under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, there is no provision contemplated to hold any enquiry, since enquiry under Rule 17(a) is meant for imposition of minor punishment. However, in the present case, even though, several complaints were received against the petitioner, she was only dealt with under Rule 17(a) and after submission of the preliminary enquiry report by the enquiry officer, punishment was imposed. The punishment imposed by the 1st respondent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent by no stretch of imagination being arbitrary, perverse or disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the settled legal position that the Court under Article 226 should not generally interfere with the quantum of punishment, unless it is arbitrary, perverse or disproportionate to the charges, this Court finds no merits to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner by the 1st respondent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.