Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order passed by the learned Judge, dated 04.12.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.473 of 2012. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal, are as follows: 2.1. The appellant had worked as Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Virudhunagar and he retired from the service on 31.07.2006, however, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The charge against the appellant is that while he was serving as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, NABARD and Rural Roads in Manamadurai Sub Division, Sivagangai District, he failed to supervise his subordinates properly and failed to check the nominal muster rolls and attendance of the labourers. On enquiry, the Enquiry Officer sent the enquiry report to the Government on 31.10.2007, to which, the appellant submitted his defence statement on 28.02.2008. The Government referred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and ultimately, the appellant was found guilty of the misconduct of acting in a manner enabling other persons to misappropriate Government money and also in violation of the Handbook Rule 267(2)(c)(iii) of the Manual of the Highways Department. Thereafter, the Government issued a notice proposing to impose a penalty of cut in the pension to the extent of Rs.500/- per month for a period of six months. After obtaining the opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Government passed the G.O.(D)No.211, Highways and Minor Ports (HL2) Department, dated 20.12.2011, affirming the proposed penalty. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the writ petition. 2.2. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials available on record, the learned Judge held that the Government had arrived at a conclusion independently that the appellant was guilty of not maintaining the nominal muster roll properly and imposed a minor penalty of cut in the pension to the tune of Rs.3,000/- in toto and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Mr. S. Visvalingam, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Government had not independently applied its mind to the charges and the representation of the appellant before arriving at such a finding to impose the penalty of cut in the pension to the tune of Rs.500/-per month for a period of six months. 3. Mr. S. Visvalingam, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Government had not independently applied its mind to the charges and the representation of the appellant before arriving at such a finding to impose the penalty of cut in the pension to the tune of Rs.500/-per month for a period of six months. Despite a finding that the appellant had not misappropriated any public money, the Government was not justified in ordering for recovery in the pension of the appellant, he argued. The learned Judge ought to have dealt with the same and quashed the impugned order, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ appeal. 4. Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the learned Judge had considered the issue and held that the Government had rightly imposed such a minor penalty and hence, no interference at the hands of this Court, is warranted. 5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 6. No doubt, the appellant on reaching the age of superannuation, was allowed to retire from service on 31.07.2006, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Even though the Tribunal had found the appellant guilty of acting in a way to enable others to misappropriate Government funds, the Government had applied its mind and arrived at a finding that the appellant was not guilty of any misappropriation. 7. The learned Judge further held that in the absence of either violation of statutory rules or the principles of natural justice, the impugned order passed by the Government could not be interfered with and accordingly, rejected the writ petition, which, is under challenge before us. 8. We find that having obtained the opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission regarding imposition of such penalty, the Government had passed the impugned order levying penalty, for the minor misconduct on the part of the appellant. 8. We find that having obtained the opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission regarding imposition of such penalty, the Government had passed the impugned order levying penalty, for the minor misconduct on the part of the appellant. The Government had also given a finding that the appellant was not guilty of any misappropriation of Government funds, but, at the same time, after conducting the enquiry and examining the witnesses, had come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of not maintaining the nominal muster roll properly and imposed the said penalty, which, in our opinion, needs no interference. The learned Judge had rightly upheld the same. 9. We, therefore, hold that the order of the learned Judge, in affirming the order of the Government, is sustainable in law and accordingly, the writ appeal fails. 10. In fine, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.