JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as the Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Field Officer, in Tirunelveli District, at the time of the filing of the writ petition. While he was working as the Co-operative Sub Registrar/Supervisor, in Palayamkottai Taluk Co-operative Housing Society, from 30.9.1996 to 30.9.1999, certain false allegations had been made against him. On a reference to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, a charge memo had been issued to him, dated 28.8.2002. Charges had been levelled against him stating that he had acted in a corrupt manner, by abusing his official position, by demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.7,000/-, on behalf of 14 beneficiaries, for the sanctioning of housing loans. The second charge was that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/-from one A.Subbiah, the Executive Committee Member of the Society. The third charge is that he had sanctioned housing loans for 12 ineligible person, by violating the norms laid down in the bye-laws. 3. It had been further stated that the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, denying the charges levelled against him. However, an enquiry had been conducted and a final report had been given, by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, on 24.3.2003. The Tribunal had found that the first charge had not been proved. Though the third charge was consequential in nature, it had been held that the said charge had been proved. Based on the said report, a notice had been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had made a representation, on 29.1.2005. Thereafter, the second respondent had passed a final order, by his proceedings, dated 13.3.2006, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment, for 5 years, with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, on 1.5.2006. Thereafter, he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.19229 of 2007. This Court had passed an order, dated 5.6.2007, directing the first respondent to pass final orders. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, in G.O.(D) No.405, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.12.2008, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, in G.O.(D) No.405, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.12.2008, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the first and the second charges framed against the petitioner had not been proved. However, during the enquiry conducted on the charges levelled against the petitioner, it had been clearly established, beyond doubt, that the petitioner had recommended and caused the sanction of the housing loans to 12 ineligible persons, by using his position as a Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Housing), Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli, during the years 1998-1999. Therefore, the enquiry report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings had been sent to the petitioner. The petitioner had sent his further representation, dated 29.1.2005. In the said representation, the petitioner had accepted that he had recommended for the sanctioning of the housing loans to 12 ineligible beneficiaries, due to the wrong guidance of the Secretary of the Society. Therefore, for the proved charges, the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Chennai, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment, for five years, with cumulative effect, in his proceedings, dated 13.3.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, dated 1.5.2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected, vide G.O.(D) No.405, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.12.2008. 5. It had been further stated that from the evidence of the witnesses, as seen from the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, dated 24.3.2006, the petitioner was fully aware that the applicants for the housing loans had existing houses. In spite of the said position, the petitioner had recommended for the sanctioning of the loans, knowing full well that the conditions stipulated in the scheme was being violated. Thus, it is clear that the act of the petitioner was deliberate and intentional. As such, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate in nature. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 6. Thus, it is clear that the act of the petitioner was deliberate and intentional. As such, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate in nature. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the first two charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. It is also clear that the first two charges levelled against the petitioner, relating to the demanding and accepting of bribe, had not been proved. It is also noted that the loans had to be sanctioned, by the sanctioning authority, which is the Board of Management of the Society concerned. Even though the petitioner had recommended certain ineligible persons, for the sanctioning of the loans, it cannot be assumed that it was a deliberate attempt made by the petitioner, with the intention of making unlawful gains, especially, when the first two charges had not been proved. As such, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate in nature. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to impose on the petitioner, the punishment of stoppage of increment, for five years, without cumulative effect, instead of the punishment imposed on him, by the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 13.3.2006. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.