JUDGMENT :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 27.12.2010, and quash the same. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as a Salesman in Tiruvallur District Consumer Wholesale Store, Tiruvallur. While so, charges had been framed against the petitioner stating that he had caused loss to the Tiruvallur District Consumer Wholesale Store, due to stock deficit, to the tune of Rs.1,56,579/- and for misappropriation of funds, to the tune of Rs.1,05,352.15/- 3. It has been further stated that, based on the said charges, enquiry proceedings had been conducted and it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Thereafter, the second respondent had passed an order, dated 23.6.2010, imposing the punishment of increment cut for two years, with cumulative effect, on the petitioner. 4. It has been further stated that, challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the first respondent, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the said order had been confirmed by the revisional authority, by the impugned order, dated 27.12.2010. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that another employee, who was junior to the petitioner and who had been charged for causing loss to the Tiruvallur District Consumer Wholesale Store, by way of stock deficit, had been promoted. However, the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of increment cut for two years, with cumulative effect. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 27.12.2010, is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had given a statement, on 8.10.2002, admitting that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him. However, an enquiry had been conducted, based on the charges levelled against the petitioner, following the procedures established by law. Since, the petitioner had been found guilty, he had been imposed with the punishment of increment cut for two years, with cumulative effect. The revisional authority, the first respondent herein, had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, by his order, dated 27.12.2010. 7. Since, the petitioner had been found guilty, he had been imposed with the punishment of increment cut for two years, with cumulative effect. The revisional authority, the first respondent herein, had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, by his order, dated 27.12.2010. 7. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the findings given by the second respondent, in his order, dated 23.6.2010, stating that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him, had not been challenged, by way of a revision petition filed before the first respondent, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Therefore, the said findings had become final. 8. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, before the first respondent, is that a person, who was junior to the petitioner, had been promoted, even though he was guilty of similar charges. However, such a contention cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the petitioner had admitted his guilt, by way of a statement made by him, on 8.10.2002. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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 certain charges had been levelled against the petitioner, for stock deficit, and for misappropriation of funds belonging to the Tiruvallur District Consumer Wholesale Store. The petitioner had admitted his guilty by way of statement, made on 8.10.2002. However, an enquiry had been conducted based on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the second respondent had passed the order, dated 23.6.2010, imposing the punishment of increment cut for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner had challenged the said order before the first respondent, by way of a revision petition, filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 10. It is also noted that the findings of the second respondent that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him had not been challenged and therefore, it had become final. 11. 10. It is also noted that the findings of the second respondent that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him had not been challenged and therefore, it had become final. 11. It is further noted that the petitioner had admitted the guilt in the statement made by him, on 8.10.2002. Even otherwise, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that the punishment imposed on him should be set aside for the reason that the person, who was junior to the petitioner and who had also been charged with similar charges, had been given promotion. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not in a position to show sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the first respondent, dated 27.12.2010. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.