Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority in treating the period from 01.12.1999 to 27.03.2001, as the period spent on leave. 2. The petitioner, while working as Police Constable, was issued a charge memo under Section 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Standing Orders (Discipline and Appeal Rules). The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges, but the competent authority disagreed with the enquiry officer and held the petitioner guilty of charge and consequently imposed a major punishment of compulsory retirement. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of punishment, approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which while upholding the finding of guilt, held that punishment awarded was disproportionate to the proved charge, and had remitted the case back to the competent authority to reconsider, qua quantum of sentence. 4. The competent authority, in view of the order passed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 4 years with cumulative effect, having effect on the pension of petitioner. 5. The competent authority also decided to treat the period spent out of service, i.e. between the order of punishment and reinstatement, as the period spent on leave of the kind due. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the order amounts to doubt jeopardy, as the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of 4 increments for 4 years with cumulative effect, having effect on pension. The impugned order, therefore, amounts to second punishment, as the petitioner has been denied the salary for the period he remained out of service. 7. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as admittedly, the petitioner had not performed any duty, therefore, he is not entitled to any salary for the period on the principle of no work no pay in view of the fact that petitioner was held guilty of charges. It is by taking lenient view, that major punishment of stoppage of increment was passed in lieu of order of compulsory retirement. While passing the order, it was duty of the competent authority to pass order regarding the period, when petitioner was out of service. It is by taking lenient view, that major punishment of stoppage of increment was passed in lieu of order of compulsory retirement. While passing the order, it was duty of the competent authority to pass order regarding the period, when petitioner was out of service. It was in discharge of statutory duty that the order has been passed by the competent authority with due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. There is no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the competent authority in treating the period between 01.12.1999 and 27.03.2001, as the period spent on leave of the kind due, as it cannot be said to be double punishment to attract the vice of double jeopardy. 9. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.