Judgment : 1. The petitioner joined as a Junior Inspector in the Cooperative Society. 2. While working as Special Officer in Karaikudi Circle Cooperative Primary Cooperative Societies Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society and in Tamil Nadu Chemicals Employees Thrift and Credit Society, he misused its funds for his personal gains. Hence, a charge memo dated 22.01.2013 was issued by the Deputy Registrar, Karaikudi Circle under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules (for short "Rules" on the following charges :– “TAMIL” 3. The Enquiry Officer held that Charge No.1 and Charge Nos.2 (2) and (3) were proved. However, the Regional Joint Registrar, Sivagangai by an order dated 28.02.2005 dropped the charges on the ground that the petitioner repaid the amount of Rs.97,500/- on 18.12.2003. 4. In these circumstances, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies found that the order of the Regional Joint Director, Sivagangai was not proper and he sent a letter to the Government dated 30.04.2007 in this regard. 5. The Government noticed that the Head of the Department could review the order within a period of six months and already, the period has expired. Therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies requested the Government to review the order of Joint Registrar, Sivagangai exercising its power under Rule 36 of the Rules. 6. In these circumstances, the Government issued a notice dated 27.11.2007 under Rule 36 of the Rules to show cause as to why the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect shall not be imposed. The petitioner gave his explanation on 24.01.2008. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12307 of 2008 to quash the aforesaid show cause notice dated 27.11.2007. This Court, by an order dated 09.06.2008 disposed of the writ petition, directing the Government to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 24.01.2008 on the show cause notice dated 27.11.2007. 8. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Government passed the final order in G.O.(D) No.163 dated 29.05.2009 imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 9. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the show cause notice dated 27.11.2007 as well as G.O.(D)No.163 dated 29.05.2009 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 10. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 9. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the show cause notice dated 27.11.2007 as well as G.O.(D)No.163 dated 29.05.2009 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 10. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer held the following charges as proved :– "(i) A sum of Rs.97,500/- has been obtained by the petitioner from the society on 16.05.2002 and repaid by him on 18.12.2003. (ii) Sanction of house construction loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to Society Manager without obtaining any documents and without following due procedures. (iii) Sanction of vehicle loan of Rs.35,000/- to society manager without following due procedures." 11. The enquiry report has been communicated to the petitioner and further representation has been received by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, viz., the Regional Joint Registrar, Sivagangai by proceedings dated 28.02.2005 dropped the charges since the amount has been collected. 12. The counter affidavit proceeds that the State Government has power under Rule 36 (1)(i) of the Rules to call for the records of any enquiry and pass a suitable order. Therefore, show cause notice was issued under Rule 36(1)(i) of the Rules. The petitioner also gave his reply to the same and only thereafter, the impugned order was passed. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent. 13. Heard both sides. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community, action was vindictively taken against him by the Government. In view of the same, he is not able to get due promotion, while his juniors were promoted. 15. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that action was taken in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 17. The aforesaid narration of facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 22.01.2003 under Rule 17(b) of the Rules for the charges extracted above. The Enquriy Officer held some of the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority dropped the proceedings on the sole ground that the petitioner repaid Rs.97,500/- on 18.12.2003 and that the housing loan and vehicle loan that were sanctioned without following the procedures were collected subsequently. The Enquriy Officer held some of the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority dropped the proceedings on the sole ground that the petitioner repaid Rs.97,500/- on 18.12.2003 and that the housing loan and vehicle loan that were sanctioned without following the procedures were collected subsequently. The Government being the Revisional Authority did not agree with the order of the Regional Joint Director, Sivagangai. Hence, exercised its power under Rule 36 of the Rules. 18. In my view, there is no reason to give any colour to the exercise of power by the Government, particularly, when it is admitted that the petitioner obtained Rs.97,500/-on 16.05.2002 and repaid it on 18.12.2003. In fact, though the aforesaid lapse is a very serious one, the Government took a very lenient view and decided to impose only minor punishment viz, stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. When the state Government has revisional power under Rule 36 of the Rules, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the state Government in exercising the same, particularly, when it is admitted that the petitioner re-paid the amount of Rs.97,500/- after a very long time, that is more than a year. 19. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.