Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been directed against the impugned order dated 20.08.2014, in and by which the petitioner's review petition, challenging the order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for one year, has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the impugned order, would submit that the petitioner was unnecessarily slapped with a charge that he had failed to discharge his legitimate duty to file the counter affidavit to vacate the interim stay granted to one Mr. Mookaiah, by the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin and thereby the petitioner deliberately failed to guide the Municipal Commissioner properly. The petitioner could never be held responsible for not filing counter for the reasons that the file relating to Revenue Branch were ordered to be routed not through him for not taking action against the unauthorised construction made out and the charges against the petitioner cannot be maintained. 3. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo containing four charges that he had failed to discharge his legitimate duty, by not taking steps to file counter affidavit to vacate the interim stay granted to one Mr. Mookaiah, by the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. But three more charges were also framed against him. Charge No.2:- “that you had deliberately failed to guide the Municipal Commissioner to file a counter affidavit to vacate the interim stay granted by the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin on 08.04.1992 in the case filed by Thiru.Solaiappa Thevar, consequent of which injunction earlier ordered was made absolute.” Charge No.3:- “that you had failed to point out to the Municipal Commissioner and the Municipal Council regarding the instructions to maintain the Pay and Use latrine and cycle stand departmentally for the year 1991-92 and failed to guide the Municipal Council properly, thereby violated the instructions issued in D.M.A's. Circular 105496/90R3, dated 24.12.90.” Charge No.4:- “that you had failed to take action against the three individuals Tvl.Jayaraman, Selvaraj and Rajendran who had constructed building instead of temporary shed and at the same time entered agreement with the parties and thereby shown favouritism in collusion with the Municipal Commissioner.” 4. After receipt of the charge-memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, denying the charges. After considering the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and finally the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report, finding him guilty of all the charges. After receipt of the charge-memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, denying the charges. After considering the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and finally the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report, finding him guilty of all the charges. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, he again submitted a written representation. The Disciplinary Authority, after taking note of the explanation, submitted by the petitioner, finally came to impose a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect from 01.10.2000 upto the date of retirement, i.e 31.05.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a review petition. Since the authority, who was seized of the review petition has not passed any order on the pending review application, he has come to this Court in W.P.(MD).No.14654 of 2010, seeking a direction against the first respondent to dispose of the review petition of the petitioner, dated 07.10.2000. This Court, by order dated 18.02.2014, disposed of the writ petition, by directing the first respondent to forward the review petition to the second respondent and with a further direction to the second respondent to dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the impugned punishment has been imposed. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent would submit that when the petitioner was issued with a charge memo, containing four charges, his explanations submitted before the authority were properly considered and after taking note of the serious charges, faced by the petitioner, only a reasonable punishment has been imposed. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the correctness of the punishment need not be entertained. 6. This Courts finds merits and substance in the argument advanced in support of the impugned order. 7. As mentioned above, when the petitioner was slapped with a charge-memo, containing four charges and submitted a detailed explanation, this Court considers that the brief notes given by the petitioner as an explanation to the charges, has been properly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect from 01.10.2002 upto to his retirement i.e 31.05.2001, in my considered opinion does not call for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD).No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.