JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner was a Manager in the District Industries Centre, Small Industries Department, Cuddalore 607 001. He filed O.A.No.7878 of 2000 challenging the order of the State Government in G.O.(2D) No.36, Small Industries (E.II.2) Department dated 7.7.1999 and also prayed for regularising the period of suspension from 17.3.1979 to 13.1.1984 and pas appropriate orders. 2. In the Original Application, Notice of Motion was ordered on 31.10.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, a reply affidavit dated 7.2.2001 was filed by the 1st respondent State together with supporting documents. As per the order of this Court in W.P.No.7859 of 2005 dated 9.3.2005, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.36647 of 2005. 3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of 'cut in pension at the rate of Rs.100/- fro a period of 15 months'. The petitioner was charge sheeted along with Ragavan and Meenakshi Sundaram on serious charges of corruption. The enquiry was held by the Commissioner for Departmental enquiries. The Commissioner by report dated 6.1.1978 recommended the removal of service of all the three officers. Insofar as the Government accepting the report issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1474, Industries Department dated 3.12.1983 and ordered removal of all the other two officers Ragavan and Meenakshi Sundaram. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on the relevant date, he was on Casual Leave, namely on 28.3.1974. Since he did not attend office, it was doubted whether he was part of receipt of illegal gratification. But, however, there are other charges of commissions and omissions on the part of the petitioner including that he made corrections in the printed form and removed the name of his brother-in-law Pitchaumani and Tmt.Rajalakshmi and that he never disclosed that Pituchumani was his brother-in-law when he entertained the application on their behalf and these charges are proved. Since extreme penalty was not required, his suspension was revoked. But he was reduced to the lower post of Assistant for a period of five years. 4. Challenging the same, he preferred O.A.Nos.691 of 1991, 2424 of 1993 and T.A.No.148 of 1990. All the applications were heard by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and a common order came to be passed on 3.12.1993. But he was reduced to the lower post of Assistant for a period of five years. 4. Challenging the same, he preferred O.A.Nos.691 of 1991, 2424 of 1993 and T.A.No.148 of 1990. All the applications were heard by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and a common order came to be passed on 3.12.1993. The Tribunal in its common order came to the conclusion that the report of the TNPSC was not furnished to the petitioner and thereafter his representation was not considered. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.1474 Industries Department dated 3.12.1983 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Government. It is not clear as to why the State Government did not challenge the order of the Tribunal especially when the Supreme Court has held in the judgment in Union of India and others v. T.V.Patel reported in (2007) 4 SCC 785 that consultation of the TNPSC is only directory and non-furnishing of the report of TNPSC will not vitiate the enquiry. 5. In any event, since that order has become final after remand, the State Government came to the conclusion that he had retired from service on 30.9.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation and since Rule 9 of the Pension Rules can be invoked, it decided to impose the penalty of cut in pension of Rs.100/- and for that purpose a fresh show cause notice dated 22.8.1995 was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.9.1995. Thereafter, the TNPSC was consulted and the opinion of the TNPSC dated 5.2.1999 came to be received by the Government and considering all these factors, the Government on the basis of proved charges imposed the penalty. Though the petitioner contended that there was enormous delay, in the present case, the matter was dealt by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries. It is the second round of litigation. Therefore, the delay is inevitable. 6. It is only because of the petitioner was pleading alibi, he was let off with a minor penalty. Even for imposing the minor penalty, the charges levelled against him were proved. The petitioner has no explanation to offer in respect of his making corrections in the record, considering the fact that his brother-in-law was an applicant when he himself was processing applications. Even for imposing the minor penalty, the charges levelled against him were proved. The petitioner has no explanation to offer in respect of his making corrections in the record, considering the fact that his brother-in-law was an applicant when he himself was processing applications. In the present case, since the penalty was only for 15 months that too at the rate of Rs.100/-, p.m. and the penalty was small and made within the four corners of Rule 9(1)(a) r/w Rule 43(5) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. With reference to his demand for treating the suspension period as duty, Rule 20 of the Pension Rules clearly shows that the period of suspension does not count unless the competent authority passes an order under FR 54. Unless his suspension was held to be unjustified, those periods cannot be counted. 7. In the present case, since this Court is upholding the penalty, even under F.R, the respondents cannot be treat it as duty for the purpose of wage. In any event, it is a matter, where the respondent has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and it is not a direct issue before this Court. 8. In the light of the above, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.