JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondents recovering a sum of Rs.69,626/- from the petitioner on account of non implemented punishment of increment cuts and pay reduction and also in refusing to settle his pension benefits on account of fact that the petitioner did not pay the amount ordered to be recovered, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's terminal benefits including gratuity, provident fund accumulation, encashment of leave and other attendant retiral benefits together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011 after rendering service in the respondent corporation as a Conductor. In the check slip prepared for settling his accounts as against item No.7(a)(xiii), it was stated that a CSR recovery of Rs.69,626/- is due from the petitioner. The petitioner sent a representation, dated 13.4.2012 stating that the recovery of Rs.69626/-was illegal. Since he had retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.3.2011, he is entitled for pension. After sending the said representation, the writ petition came to be filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 24.04.2012, the petitioner was directed to serve notice on the respondents. Accordingly, notice has been service and the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 22.08.2012, to which the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 18.11.2012. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was suffering a punishment while he was in service. On 04.01.2003, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Though in the order of punishment it was stated that he is entitled to file an appeal to the Managing Director, no appeal was filed. Similarly, by an another order dated 03.12.2004, he was imposed with the penalty of reduction in the scale of pay by two stages for a period of 5 years. The petitioner, thereafter, was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year by an order dated 02.01.2006. Again, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment for six months by an order dated 09.03.2006. The petitioner, thereafter, was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year by an order dated 02.01.2006. Again, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of stoppage of increment for six months by an order dated 09.03.2006. Subsequently, by an order dated 19.8.2010, he was imposed with penalty of reduction in rank from the post of the senior Conductor to that of Conductor and his basic pay was reduced from Rs.7045/- to Rs.5305/-. In none of the penalty orders, the petitioner preferred any appeal and thus, allowed those orders to become final. It is as against the last order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, but no order was passed before his retirement. The appeal was also rejected by the respondents on 04.05.2011. 5. The petitioner complained before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour by his complaint dated 13.1.2012 stating that the deduction in terms of CSR payment was not valid. Before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the respondents management gave a reply, dated 15.3.2012 stating that as per the general service rules, the amount can be deducted in case of penalties which are unable to be implemented. It was stated that during the service period, the petitioner never filed any appeal against his punishment. In view of his continued misconduct, various punishments could not be imposed during the period of service. If he is allowed to retire without suffering the consequences of punishment, then it will only lead to undesirable result of other employees committing similar misconduct. 6. It is admitted by the petitioner that penalties of stoppage of increment as well as reduction in pay could not be enforced. 7. In the counter affidavit it was stated that during the tenure of service of the petitioner, the punishment could not be imposed. Under the certified standing order, if matters are not dealt with specifically, the common service rules will apply. In case of impossibility of enforcement of penalty before retirement, monetary equivalent of amount can be recovered. 8. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. Ajoy Khose placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this court in W.P.(MD)No.9889 of 2007 in N. Jothi Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., dated 10.8.2011, wherein recovery of amount after allowing the employee under voluntary retirement was frowned upon by this court. 8. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. Ajoy Khose placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this court in W.P.(MD)No.9889 of 2007 in N. Jothi Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., dated 10.8.2011, wherein recovery of amount after allowing the employee under voluntary retirement was frowned upon by this court. But in that case, no such findings were rendered with reference to rule position. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon an another unreported judgment of this court in W.P.No.12824 of 2012 in Petchimuthu Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. and others, dated 16.11.2012, wherein a learned Judge of this court held that though stoppage of increment for a specific duration can be converted into recovery of amount equivalent to the same in terms of the fundamental rules relating to Government servant, the same logic will not apply to employees of transport corporation as the fundamental rule will not apply to them and that they are governed by the standing orders. Hence the recovery was set aside by this court. But, however once again the application of relevant common service rules in case of issues not covered by the standing order was not gone into. By G.O.Ms.No.1373, Transport Department, dated 02.12.1985, common service rules are applicable as per the decision of the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 19.4.1986. 9. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay any amount only because he was allowed to retire from service. On the other hand, for specific acts of misconducts, he was imposed with penalties and that the petitioner cannot escape from the consequences of suffering those penalties only because he was allowed to retire from service. The common service rule provides for recovery of amount equivalent to that of penalty when they were not able to be implemented. 10. However, Mr. V. Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recoveries have been made more than what was due. In the common service rule in respect of major penalties, it was stated as follows: "MAJOR PENALTIES: (d) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect. 10. However, Mr. V. Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recoveries have been made more than what was due. In the common service rule in respect of major penalties, it was stated as follows: "MAJOR PENALTIES: (d) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect. (e) Recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withhold, where such an order cannot be given effect to. Explanation: In case of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the monetary value equivalent to three times the amount of increments ordered to be withheld may be recovered." 11. He contended that the CSR recovery details given by the management contained three times penalty which was not contemplated under the rules. The calculation shown by the management as found in page 20 of the typed set read as follows: 12. Neither in the counter nor by way of production of any document, the respondents had given justification for imposing three times penalty. In the absence of the same, the recovery of three time of amount as penalty cannot be countenanced by this court. Hence the writ petition stands partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay terminal dues to the petitioner after deducting actual amount of monetary equivalent of penalty suffered by the petitioner as postponement of increment without any penal charges on the same and make a revised calculation and also pay the other terminal dues. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.