Judgment :- N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal confirming the punishment of withholding next one increment for one year without cumulative effect was confirmed. 2. The petitioner while working as an Accountant at St. Thomas Mount Head Office made remarks as “don’t pay absentee statement” in the acquittance roll of Part-I officials on the ground that the absence statement for the month of July 2007 was not received. For the said act the petitioner was proceeded with under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rule 1964, by issuance of charge memo dated 21.8.2007, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner made remarks on the absentee acquittance roll without prior orders of the head-office, despite the issue of absentee statement on 23.7.2009 by the Chief Postmaster General. The petitioner sent a reply on 27.8.2007. By order dated 3.9.2007, the third respondent awarded punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect. 3. The appeal preferred to the second respondent was rejected on 14.11.2007 and the revision preferred to the first respondent was dismissed by order dated 23.7.2009. Aggrieved by that the petitioner approached the central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai which dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 4. The petitioner contended that she, being an accountant, after ascertaining the nonreceipt of absentee statement for July, 2007 made “don’t pay absentee statement” remarks in the acquittance roll after discussing the case with the post-master. Even if the absentee statement was correctly sent to the accounts branch, the postmaster should have ordered cancellation of remarks made on the acquittance roll when the petitioner handed over the said acquittance roll to him. Therefore, she did not commit any irregularity. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents that the remarks “don’t pay” was recorded in the acquittance roll of Part-I officials of the St. Thomas Mount Head Post Office (H.P.O) without the knowledge of the head office, which resulted in hindrance of disbursement of pay and allowance and created displeasure among the staff. 5. Heard the rival contentions. Thomas Mount Head Post Office (H.P.O) without the knowledge of the head office, which resulted in hindrance of disbursement of pay and allowance and created displeasure among the staff. 5. Heard the rival contentions. The monthly statement is drawn on the basis of absentee statement and the postmaster is responsible for the drawal of pay of the officials and he signs the acquittance roll and monthly bills, if the absentee statement for July 2007 was already sent and if contrary to the same if the petitioner made any remarks in the acquittance roll, the postmaster should have cancelled/struck off the said remarks, when the acquittance roll was handed over to him and avoided unpleasant situation. Without doing so, that the Postmaster cannot simply sign the acquittance roll and put the blame on the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment cannot be sustained. 6. There is no necessity for the petitioner to make such a remark, if the absentee statement for the month of July 2007 was received by the accounts branch as she contends that she ascertained non-receipt of the absentee statement and thereafter only made remarks on the acquittance roll. If really there was any controversy with regard to the fact, proper enquiry should have been held by the authorities to ascertain the facts. Therefore, punishment cannot be inflicted on the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained and the observation of the tribunal that the petitioner should have been diligent enough to create avoidable disturbance and obtain the absentee statement in the usual course is not sustainable. As stated above, the petitioner cannot be found fault with and the order of the authorities as confirmed by the tribunal is set aside and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is consequently set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.