JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 30.09.2009 in W.P.No.12151 of 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P.No.12151 of 2006 on 30.09.2009, has inter alia observed that '...In any event, though the charges were found to be proved, considering the family circumstances and stroke affected mother, this Court feels that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service is disproportionate and a lenient view is required to be taken, and without condoning his acts, appropriately directed the Authorities 'to impose minor punishment other than retirement, removal or dismissal from service and compulsory retirement.' Further, the Learned Single Judge has also directed the Authorities to get an undertaking from the Delinquent Officer (Respondent/Writ Petitioner) that he will not commit any such act throughout his service etc., and consequently, quashed the impugned orders and directed the 3rd Respondent to pass orders in terms of suggestions made in the order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and allowed the Writ Petition without costs. 3. Being dissatisfied with the Order dated 30.09.2009 in W.P.No.12151 of 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellants/Authorities, as 'Aggrieved' persons, have projected the present Writ Appeal. 4. According to the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants/Respondents, the Learned Single Judge, while allowing W.P.12151 of 2006 and issuing certain directions to the Appellants/Respondents, has not appreciated a vital fact that both the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities, after considering the merits of the grave charges discussed in their orders ultimately, rejected the petitions of the Respondent/Petitioner. 5. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants/ Respondents submits that the Learned Single Judge omitted to take into account the fact that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the period of service of the Respondent/Petitioner in the Department, has taken a lenient view by awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. 6. The plea taken on behalf of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants/Respondents is that there is one more disciplinary proceeding pending against the Respondent/petitioner in PR.No.36/2004, awaiting final orders from the Government. 7. 6. The plea taken on behalf of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants/Respondents is that there is one more disciplinary proceeding pending against the Respondent/petitioner in PR.No.36/2004, awaiting final orders from the Government. 7. Finally, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants/Respondents contends that the Respondent/Petitioner has committed a serious offence of producing false documents to the Bank Authorities to avail the housing loan. 8. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Petitioner submits that the Appellants/Respondents have failed to appreciate that the charge framed against the Respondent/Petitioner and extracted in the impugned orders is “Highly reprehensible conduct in having prepared a bogus pay certificate forging the signature by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, ...”; that the Enquiry Officer has rendered a categorical finding that 'in this oral enquiry, there is no oral or recorded evidence as to who had prepared the Pay Certificate and who had forged the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District and as such, the first limb of the charge has not been established and also, the second limb of the charge does not stand a moment's scrutiny. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner contends that the 3rd Appellant/3rd Respondent, who has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer, should have dropped the proceedings and also that though the wrong Pay Certificate produced by the Respondent/ Petitioner has been withdrawn, on coming to know that the same is defective and when he has not derived any undue gain by means of the said wrong Certificate, automatically, the charges, as such, cannot be held to be established. 10. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner that the Petitioners/Respondents have misconstrued the findings of the Enquiry Officer as if the Respondent/Petitioner has prepared the bogus Pay Certificate and forged the signature of the Superintendent of Police and only on that basis, the impugned orders have been passed. 11. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner is that the 1st Petitioner/1st Respondent, in Paragraph 6 of his order, has stated, without application of mind that 'the charge is forging the signature of Superintendent of Police' despite the fact, the Enquiry Officer has stated that there is no evidence in this regard. 11. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner is that the 1st Petitioner/1st Respondent, in Paragraph 6 of his order, has stated, without application of mind that 'the charge is forging the signature of Superintendent of Police' despite the fact, the Enquiry Officer has stated that there is no evidence in this regard. The categorical stand taken on behalf of the Respondent/ Petitioner is that by using the bogus Pay Certificate, he has not obtained any loan from the Bank. Also, a stand is taken on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner that if at all, any one is aggrieved in regard to the 'bogus Pay Certificate' then, the Bank alone should have lodged a complaint and in the instant case, the Bank has not lodged any complaint and when the Bank has accepted the Respondent/Petitioner's withdrawal of the loan application without filing any complaint, the very disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent/petitioner are totally unwarranted. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment passed by the 3rd Appellant/3rd Respondent in Proceedings C.No.B1/4354/2005, dated 09.06.2005, imposing the punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service' on the Respondent/Petitioner will expose the Respondent/Petitioner to grave hardship and mental agony inasmuch as he has 16 years of service to his credit (at the time of passing the order of punishment) prior to normal retirement and in any event, the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded is disproportionate to the proved charges. 13. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Delinquent, the Respondent has to take care of his wife and three children and further, the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authorities concerned is very much on the higher side. 14. It is to be pertinently pointed out that the charge leveled against the Respondent/Petitioner (Delinquent) is that 'highly reprehensible conduct in having prepared a bogus Pay Certificate forging the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District without showing the actual monthly salary of Rs.6,145/-and by showing an excess amount of Rs.11,165/-as monthly net pay and thereby, attempted to obtain an increased amount of loan by producing bogus pay certificate on 06.07.2002 from the State Bank of Travancore at Ooty Branch.' 15. The Respondent/Petitioner has been issued with a Charge Memo in respect of a charge under Section 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.29/2004 of Ramanathapuram District and that the said Charge Memo has been served upon him on 08.04.2004. The Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram, has been nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct an oral enquiry as per Proceedings No.B1/5666/2003, dated 14.05.2004, of the 3rd Appellant/3rd Respondent. The 3rd Appellant/3rd Respondent conducted an oral enquiry and held that the charge against the Respondent/petitioner established as per his Minutes dated 31.03.2005. The 3rd Appellant/3rd Respondent (Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Range) concurred with the Enquiry Officer's findings and imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the Respondent/Petitioner as per order in C.No.B1/4354/2005, dated 09.06.2005 and the said order has been served on 23.06.2005 on the Respondent/petitioner. 16. The Respondent/Petitioner filed an Appeal to the 2nd Appellant/2nd Respondent (Additional Director General of Police (L&O), Chennai) and the same was rejected as per Proceedings No.177920/Ap.I(3)/2005, dated 20.09.2005. 17. The Respondent/Petitioner projected a Review Petition to the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent (Director General of Police, Chennai) and the same was rejected as per proceedings No.250067/Ap.I(2)/ 2005, dated 09.02.2006. 18. According to the Appellants/Respondents, the Respondent/ Petitioner to his credit has four earlier punishments and as such, it cannot be said that he has rendered an unblemished service in the Department. 19. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants contends that the Respondent/Petitioner, being an experienced person of 17 years of service in a responsible post, ought to have submitted an application for obtaining the Pay Certificate from the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, which should be routed through his immediate superior, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who in turn, is to forward the same application to the Superintendent of Police along with his remarks for issuing the Pay Certificate. Such application is to be processed at numerous stages in the District Police Office and the same will be put up before the Superintendent of Police for approval and thereafter, only the Certificate signed by the Superintendent of Police will be routed through proper channel and later, issued to the Respondent/Petitioner. 20. Such application is to be processed at numerous stages in the District Police Office and the same will be put up before the Superintendent of Police for approval and thereafter, only the Certificate signed by the Superintendent of Police will be routed through proper channel and later, issued to the Respondent/Petitioner. 20. At this stage, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants forcefully contends that the Respondent/Petitioner has violated all the official procedure by stating that he has approached the staff of the Office and obtained a Certificate, which is an incorrect one. 21. In regard to the other contention of the Respondent/Petitioner, he has withdrawn his loan application when he has come to know that his basic pay has been wrongly noted, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants submits that the same will not hold good because of the fact that the Respondent/Petitioner has already submitted a forged document to the Bank. 22. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants submits that even though no loan has been obtained by the Respondent/petitioner from the Bank by producing the forged Certificate, the factum of preparation of the forged Certificate itself is a grave offence. 23. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants contends that the Respondent/Petitioner has been given the opportunity to submit his further representation, within 15 days from 24.04.2005 and also that another 15 days time has been granted. However, the Respondent/Petitioner has not submitted his further representation and that the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service after analysing the merits of the matter. Apart from the above, the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities, after considering the merits of the grave charges, have finally rejected his petitions. Only, by taking a lenient view, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service has been awarded to the Respondent/Petitioner, instead of his dismissal or removal from service. 24. It cannot be gainsaid that while exercising the powers of the Judicial Review, a Court of Law/Tribunal does not become an Appellate forum. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to recall the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Raibareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Bholanath Singh and Others, (1997) 1 SCC Labour & Service 865, wherein it is held that 'The Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Court and re-appreciate the findings and take a different view from the departmental Authorities, etc. 25. It is to be noted that the sentence must suit misconducts of the offender. However, it should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. Also, it ought not to be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock one's conscience. 26. This Court aptly points out the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L.Alaspurkar and Others, AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 948, at Page 958, wherein it is observed and held that “The imposition of punishment of dismissal on the delinquents found sleeping in wee hours of night shift in plant and kept machine in running condition without inserting raw materials would be disproportionate and amounts to unfair Labour practice being an instance of legal victimization”. 27. It is to be borne in mind that 'Compulsory Retirement' is a species of removal. A person is removed from service though he does not lose the terminal benefits which he has already earned. This is merely softening the blow. But, it is a removal nonetheless in Law. 28. In Law, there is no distinction between a 'dismissal' and 'removal' except that the former disqualifies from future employment, while the latter does not. 29. To put in succinctly, a dismissal is a kind of removal with a prohibition super added and the removal is one kind of species of dismissal. In fact, the Judicial Review is obtained, when the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the delinquent is irrational i.e, in outrageous defiance of logic. 30. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to aptly point out the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bishan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2670, at Page 2671 wherein in Paragraph 4, it is observed and held as under: “It is true that the appellants are disciplined members of the police force. The grievance of inadequate accommodation provided to them is a legitimate grievance to be represented to the officer for its redressal. No doubt, prohibitory order was issued and there is violation thereof; however, the appellants marched peacefully to make their representation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that they have committed misconduct warranting extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is set aside. However, the respondents are directed to impose penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect”. 31. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that they have committed misconduct warranting extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is set aside. However, the respondents are directed to impose penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect”. 31. Also, we worth recall the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.S.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 484, at Page 484 wherein it is laid down as follows: “Disciplinary authority and on appeals, appellate authority are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. It the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 32. As far as the present case is concerned, The Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram, in the Minutes drawn in P.R.No.29/2004 u/r 3(b), dated 31.03.2005, has clearly rendered a finding that “from the statement of PW3 (P.Kalyanaraman), the Personal Manager, State Bank of Travancore at Ooty Branch, it could be found that when the delinquent (Respondent/Writ Petitioner) along with his wife Tmt. Zamthani had presented an application for housing finance (Ex.P.6) seeking a housing loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purchase of a house in the name of the delinquent's wife Tmt. Zamthani, in the said application i.e., Ex.P.6, the photo of the delinquent as well as his wife were found fixed. Thus, there is no dispute that the loan application seeking for housing finance, was presented none other than the delinquent himself.” 33. Further, in the Minutes drawn, it is also mentioned that the Delinquent (Respondent/Petitioner) had examined K. Nagarajan, Office Assistant of the District Police Office, Ramanathapuram, as a defence witness and made an endeavour to elicit that the Pay Certificate was given to him (Ex.P.1) only by the said Office Assistant. However, the statement of PW2 revealed that the delinquent (Respondent/Petitioner) never had given any petition at the District Police Office requesting Pay Certificate. However, the statement of PW2 revealed that the delinquent (Respondent/Petitioner) never had given any petition at the District Police Office requesting Pay Certificate. Moreover, PW2 in his statement had also added that if the Pay Certificate was given an entry therein made about the purpose for which the Certificate was requested but, in the Pay Certificate (Ex.P.1) no such entry about the purpose for which the Pay Certificate was issued, was not found. Moreover, when details found in the Pay bill were compared with the details of the Pay Certificate given by the delinquent Inspector, it is found that in Ex.P.1 the Pay Certificate produced by the delinquent at the State Bank of Travancore, Ooty Branch, an amount of Rs.11,165/- had been entered as a net salary of the delinquent for the month of July 2003, whereas in the pay statement, which is a copy of the delinquent, it is found that he was getting only an amount of Rs.6,145/- for the month of July 2003. 34. That apart, in the Minutes, it is also stated that PW1 K.Ramanujam, who is working as Camp Assistant to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapouram, has clearly stated that “the signature found in the Pay Certificate (Ex.P.1) produced by the delinquent (Respondent/petitioner) at the Bank, was not the signature of the Thiru. Ashok Kumar, I.P.S., the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. Also, the witness further added that the seal found below the signature in the Pay Certificate is not the seal which is to be a normally used. PW1 K.Ramanujam has clearly asserted that personally, he knows the signature of Thiru. Ashok Kumar, I.P.S., the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, since he was well-conversant with the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, for he is working in close proximity with him by placing the letters, Pay bills, TA Bills, and Daily diaries and routine tapals used to put his signature etc.” 35. Finally, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram District, in his Minutes dated 31.03.2005, has clearly held that from the statement of PW3 P.Kalyanaraman, Personal Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Ooty Branch, it is evident that the delinquent only produced the Pay Certificate along with the application for housing finance marked as Ex.P.6. On the request made by the delinquent in letter dated 07.01.2005, one witness Tr. On the request made by the delinquent in letter dated 07.01.2005, one witness Tr. V.N.Sudharsh, Chief Manager, was not examined in this oral enquiry, since the delinquent admitted the contents of the statement dated 29.09.2003 (Ex.P.8) recorded by the Preliminary Enquiry Officer (PW4), Thiru.T.Julian, formerly Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, now the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Vellore District. 36. Added further, the Minutes drawn by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram, dated 31.03.2005 proceeds to mention that 'even if the delinquent (Respondent/petitioner) is able to prove that he obtained the Pay Certificate through DW1 Thiru. K. Nagarajan, Office Assistant, he doubt whether it could shield him against this delinquency since the delinquent was setting only Rs.9,622/- as his gross pay for the month of June 2003 and hence, his carry home salary i.e. monthly net pay , could not be Rs.9,622/- after making all deductions. Resultantly, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram, while winding up his Minutes dated 31.03.2005 has clearly held that 'the delinquent had utilised the Pay Certificate carrying the forged signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram and with false and boosted figures as his monthly net gross to get huge housing loan from the State Bank of Travancore, Ooty Branch, on 16.07.2003. Also, he has stated that 'in this oral enquiry, there is no oral or recorded evidence as to who had prepared the Pay Certificate and who had forged the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.' 37. To judge the validity or legality of any administrative order of statutory discretion, ordinarily, the Wednesbury test is to be resorted to, in order to find out, if the decision arrived at is illegal or suffered from any procedural improprieties or was one which no prudent/ reasonable man can on the available materials before him and within the ambit of Law, have arrived at. A Court of Law/Tribunal by and large will not interfered with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority/Administrator, unless it is patently illegal or it is irrational or suffered from any procedural vice. Only in fit/appropriate/rare cases, a Court of Law/Tribunal will venture to substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent, in the place of punishment imposed by the appropriate authority. 38. Only in fit/appropriate/rare cases, a Court of Law/Tribunal will venture to substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent, in the place of punishment imposed by the appropriate authority. 38. It is to be noted that every member of Police Force/Department is required to protect the interest of his Employer/Superior and to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity, integrity, honesty, devotion, determination, dedication and diligence. As a matter of fact, a person shall not do any act unbecoming of a member of Police Force/Department. Good conduct and discipline are jewel in a crown for every employee in the Police Force/Department, he serve. Certainly, acting beyond one's lawful authority is by itself an act of indiscipline and the said mischief squarely comes within the ambit of 'misconduct'. 39. We aptly point out the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 9 (DEV SINGH V. PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER), wherein, it is held that 'dismissal from service in losing a file was disproportionate and instead imposed a punishment of withholding of one increment including stoppage at the efficiency bar. 40. In the present case on hand, before us, the Respondent/Petitioner has received fair treatment in the oral enquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) Ramanathapuram, who has examined four prosecution witnesses and marked 10 exhibits on the side of the Prosecution. On the side of the Respondent/petitioner (delinquent) one person has been examined as defence witness. On going through the Minutes in PR.29/2004 u/r 3(b), dated 31.03.2005, drawn by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram, and also, the materials placed before this Court, we are of the considered view that in regard to the second limb of charge viz., 'by showing an excess amount of Rs.11,165/-as monthly net salary and thereby, attempted to increase the amount of loan by producing the bogus Pay Certificate on 16.07.2003 from the State Bank of Travancore, Ooty Branch,' has been proved and the conclusion arrived at by the concerned Authority is valid, fair, just and proper, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, which float on the surface. As regards the first limb of the charge leveled against the Respondent/Employee that 'in having prepared a bogus Pay Certificate forging the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District....” the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Ramanathapuram, (Enquiry Officer) in the Minutes drawn dated 31.03.2005 has clearly come to the conclusion that 'in this oral enquiry, there is no oral or recorded evidence as to who had prepared the Pay Certificate and who had forged the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.' 41. Admittedly, there is no real embezzlement or misappropriation of monetary sum. But, it is not a defence to state that there is no loss or unlawful gain or profit or even an unjust enrichment, in an act where an employee has acted without authority. Even the Learned Single Judge has, in the order in W.P.No.12151 of 2006 filed by the Respondent/Petitioner, on 30.09.2009, has clearly, in Paragraph 17, come to the conclusion that ‘since the charges were proved and the authority can impose major penalty other than retirement, removal from service, the dismissal from service and compulsory retirement.’ In fact, the Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that 'though the charges are found to be proved against the Respondent/Petitioner, considering the family circumstances and stroke affected mother, felt that punishment of compulsory retirement from service is disproportionate and further, opined that a lenient view is required to be taken' etc., It is true that the Police force is a disciplined force and there is no room for proved dishonesty or gross negligence or a person remaining in service with lack of integrity. Ordinarily, there is no place for either generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forum and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment. Also, a Court of Law has no power, ordinarily, to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. In the instant case, the conclusions arrived at by the Authorities concerned are based on evidence and on available on record. But, in the instant case, the 3rd Appellant/Respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his Proceedings No.B1/4354/2005, dated 09.06.2005, holding that the charge against the Respondent/Delinquent has been proved and considering the gravity of the charge awarded a punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service. 42. But, in the instant case, the 3rd Appellant/Respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his Proceedings No.B1/4354/2005, dated 09.06.2005, holding that the charge against the Respondent/Delinquent has been proved and considering the gravity of the charge awarded a punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service. 42. Later, the 2nd Appellant/2nd Respondent in his proceedings RC No.177920/AP.I (3)/2005, dated 20.09.2005, has concurred with the findings of the punishing authority and dismissed the Appeal Petition preferred by the Respondent/Petitioner (Delinquent) dated 14.02.2005. Finally, the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent in Proceedings No.RC.No.250067/AP.I(2)/2005, 09.02.2006, has, after going through the Review Petition dated 24.10.2005, projected by the Respondent/petitioner (delinquent) and other connected records has held that rightly, the Respondent/Petitioner has been compulsory retired and that there is no room to show any mercy and rejected his Review Petition. 43. Inasmuch as the awarding of punishment must suit the offence and offender and also bearing in mind an important fact that the said punishment ought not to be unduly harsh or vindictive so as to say that it should not be disproportionate to the offence committed as to shock one's conscience, we are of the considered view that for the proved charge against the Respondent/Petitioner (delinquent employee), the award of punishment of compulsory retirement from service is an excessive one. To meet the ends of Justice, since the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon the Respondent/Petitioner is on the higher side, we set aside the order of the 3rd Appellant/3rd Respondent in Proceedings C.No.B1/4354/2005, dated 09.06.2005 and the other proceedings of the 2nd Appellant/2nd Respondent No.177920/Ap.I(3)/2005, dated 20.09.2005 and the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent's Proceedings No.RC.No.250067/ AP.I(2)/2005, dated 09.02.2006, instead, for the proved misconduct/charge leveled against the Respondent/Petitioner, we impose a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, (in providing remedy to end the litigation) which in our considered view will subserve the ends of Justice and also with a view to turn a new leaf in Respondent/Delinquent future career. Resultantly, we direct the Appellants/Respondents to reinstate the Respondent/petitioner into service, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Petitioner/Respondent is not entitled to any back wages from the date of his compulsory retirement from service till the date of his reinstatement. Resultantly, we direct the Appellants/Respondents to reinstate the Respondent/petitioner into service, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Petitioner/Respondent is not entitled to any back wages from the date of his compulsory retirement from service till the date of his reinstatement. After reinstatement, the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect awarded by this Court, is to be imposed upon the Respondent/Petitioner. For calculating the pensionary benefits, the authorities concerned shall take into account the period of his non employment till the date of reinstatement. After reinstatement, we direct the Appellants/Respondents not to post the Respondent/Petitioner (Delinquent employee) in the positions where he can handle monetary matters like preparing the bill, etc., 44. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.