Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 10.6.2009, wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissed the claim made by the petitioner to reimburse the amount recovered from him relating to the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect imposed on him, the present writ petition is filed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, who was working as a Postal Assistant at Kallakurichi, that he was issued with a charge memo dated 14.07.2004 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and though he submitted a detailed explanation, the third respondent passed an order of punishment imposing reduction of pay by three stages for a period of three years vide order dated 03.08.2004, against which, an appeal was filed before the second respondent, who set aside the order of punishment and remitted the matter back to the third respondent for passing orders afresh. It is stated that thereafter, the third respondent, by order dated 22.06.2006, modified the order of punishment and reduced the pay scale of the cumulative effect, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who confirmed the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent and the same was rejected as per order dated 23.07.2007. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.848 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the Head Post Offices in the third respondent Division have not submitted the Saving Bank, Money Order issue, Money Order paid, Indian Postal Order, British Postal Order returns to Audit Office in due date because of the shortage of staff and the third respondent, without taking any action against those officials, punished the petitioner heavily, which is arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended that by virtue of the belated submission of the returns, no loss was caused to the Department and hence, the third respondent should not have imposed punishment on the petitioner. It is further contended that by virtue of the belated submission of the returns, no loss was caused to the Department and hence, the third respondent should not have imposed punishment on the petitioner. However, it is strongly contended that the last date was also not fixed in the Rule to submit the returns to Audit Office, and there is no sufficient staff given to the Head Office to follow the Rules and through the total strength of the Head office was 23, the available strength was only 10 or 11 in many days and the Senior Postal Assistants were officiating as Postmaster and Assistant Postmaster and no official is completing the day to day work due to heavy work entrusted on them for the reason of shortage of staff and ignoring the said fact, the third respondent punished the petitioner. Finally it is contended that both the respondents and the Tribunal should have appreciated the above shortage of staff and apart from the Tribunal, the respondents are very much aware of it and therefore, they should not have penalized the petitioner. 5. On going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that on the same set of charges leveled against both the petitioner and one Tamilmani, who was acted as an Officiating Postmaster, Kallalurichi, the Appellate Authority has modified the punishment from reduction of pay by two stages from the pay of Rs.6000/- to 6500/-for a period of two years to that of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.6800/- to 6650/-in the time scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000 for a period of three months. 6. In view of the above, we consider it appropriate to extend the said benefit to the petitioner also. Accordingly, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified to that of reduction in pay by one stage in the time scale of pay which he was drawing at the relevant point of time, for a period of three months. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. However, there will be no order as to costs.