Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside and quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.456 of 2007 dated 22.7.2009. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This writ petition has arisen under the following facts and circumstances. The first respondent joined as a daily rated LR in the year 1979. In the year 1981, he was appointed on regular basis as Safaiwala and he was also changed to the cadre of helper in the year 1983. He was appointed to the post of LDC through the departmental selection test in the year 1988. On 9.6.1998, he was promoted to the post of Steward equivalent to UDC/Assistant Cashier. He was suspended on 4.7.1998 on certain allegation of misappropriation of Government money. He was issued with a charge memo dated 29.8.1998 which was subsequently revised and a fresh charge memo framing two charges, was issued on 24.8.1999. An enquiry officer was appointed. On enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that both the charges were proved against him. The first respondent was imposed with the following penalty on 4.10.2000. "(i) Shri N.Damodaran, Assistant Cashier will be reverted back to Group D post of Helper (which he was holding prior to his appointment as LDC) for a period of two years in the minimum time scale of pay of the post of Helper. And thereafter, he will be brought to the post of LDC in the minimum of the time scale of pay and will rank junior to all the incumbents at the stage and point of time. The period of suspension from 4.7.1998 till the date of rejoining to duty will be treated as duty for pension/DCRG purposes only and the pay and allowances for the period of suspension is restricted to what was paid as subsistence allowance." An appeal filed by him was rejected by order dated 1.3.2007, confirming the punishment. The first respondent already undergone the punishment and had been brought back to the post of LDC in the minimum time scale from 4.10.2002 and he has been made junior to all the incumbents on that date. Aggrieved over the same, he preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after giving opportunity to the respondent therein, the petitioner herein, modified the punishment. Aggrieved over the same, the department has brought forth this writ petition. 4. Aggrieved over the same, he preferred the Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after giving opportunity to the respondent therein, the petitioner herein, modified the punishment. Aggrieved over the same, the department has brought forth this writ petition. 4. Advancing the argument on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that during the relevant time there were allegations of misappropriation against the first respondent. He was entrusted with the Government money, when two charges were framed against him. Procedurally, enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer has found the first respondent guilty. The disciplinary authority imposed punishments and those punishments were actually in proportionate to the acts committed by him and considering the same, the appellate authority has confirmed the punishment, rejecting the appeal. But an erroneous view was taken by the Tribunal that the punishment imposed was unreasonable. 5. The learned counsel would further submit that it was the case that the first respondent was entrusted with the Government money and he has also remitted back a sum of Rs.19,999./- to the Government exchequer. This would also clearly indicate the act of misappropriation. Taking into consideration the act committed by him, the punishment imposed on him was reasonable. Hence, there was no need for reducing the punishments. Hence, the original order has got to be restored. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looking into the available materials on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not carry any merits whatsoever. 7. It is not in controversy that during the relevant time the first respondent was actually working as UDC/Assistant Cashier and he was also entrusted with Government money. Two charges of misappropriation were levelled against him. Enquiry was procedurally conducted and the Enquiry officer has also given the findings against the first respondent. It is pertinent to point out that the Enquiry officer, on perusal of the explanation tendered by first respondent in respect of the charges levelled against him, has pointed out that the explanation were quite understandable and deserved to be considered and merely because the amount of Rs.19,999/-which was found missing was paid by him, it cannot be stated that he has misappropriated the money. It is further to be pointed out that during the relevant time there was absence of regular guidance and supervision in the Accounts Department which has resulted in not maintaining the Cash Book properly and not remitting the cash collection by the first respondent. Under such circumstances, the explanation would clearly show that it was the misconduct in view of the non-availability of the above such deficiency which has arisen. Taking into consideration of the above situation, the Enquiry Officer has pointed out that the explanation tendered by the delinquent is quite understandable. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal, taking into consideration that the punishment what was awarded to the first respondent is not proportionate to the charges proved, modified the punishment with stoppage of one increment for a period of two years in the cadre of LDC from the date on which the impugned order of punishment came into effect. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the modification of the punishments made by the Tribunal was perfectly correct and there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.