Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6263 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.7371 of 2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was working as Cooperative Sub-Registrar during 1995 and he was also holding the post of Special Officer in three Cooperative Societies namely i)South Arcot Milk Producers Co-operative Union Employees Co-operative Society ii) Tirukoilur Revenue Divisional Employees Co-operative Credit Society and iii) Villupuram Taluk Aided School Teachers Employees Cooperative Society. 4. While so, a charge memo dated 08.05.1997 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules was issued against the petitioner. Three charges were made against the petitioner. (a) The first charge was that he increased the salary of a consolidated employee in the South Arcot Milk Producers Co-operative Union Employees Co-operative Society from Rs.750/-to 1200/- per month with effect from October 1995 without obtaining prior permission of the second respondent. It was alleged that the said Society incurred loss of Rs.3,990/- due to the aforesaid increase for the period from October 1995 to April 1996. (b) The second charge was that he revised the scale of pay of an employee of viz., Thiru.K.Babu from Rs.774-1932 to Rs.975-2000 from July 1995 onwards without obtaining prior permission from the second respondent. This resulted in the loss of Rs.7060/-for the said society from July 1995 to April 1996. (c)The third charge was that the petitioner granted scale of pay to an employee of Villupuram Taluk Aided School Teachers Employees Cooperative Society, who was in receipt of consolidated pay of Rs.1700/- from 1995. It was alleged that the said employee was granted scale of pay of Rs.1200 - 2020/- without obtaining prior permission from the second respondent and thereby caused a loss of Rs.21,998/- for the period from January 1995 to April 1996. 5. The petitioner gave her explanation denying the charges. In her explanation, she had stated that the increase in pay/revision given to the employees in the three Societies was as per the Circular dated 13.10.1990, that provides to incur expenditure regarding the salary of the employees within 2 to 3% of the current capital. 6. However, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer held that all the charges were proved. 6. However, an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer held that all the charges were proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent, by an order dated 29.09.2000 imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 7. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 05.02.2001 before the first respondent against the aforesaid order of the second respondent, dated 29.09.2000. 8. While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 07.05.2002 to show cause as to why the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner should not be enhanced to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. 9. The petitioner gave her explanation. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.07.2002 enhancing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 29.09.2000 and the order of the first respondent dated 11.07.2002, the petitioner has filed this Original Application (W.P.No.7371 of 2002). 10. The petitioner has enclosed the Circular of the Registrar, dated 13.10.1990 in Na.Ka.No.41/90, wherein, in para 3, it is stated that the Society could incur expenditure relating to the salary of the employees within 2% to 3% of the current capital. It is also stated that the Society should have paid 12% dividend to the Share Holders. The relevant passage in Paragraph 3 of the said Circular dated 13.10.1990 is extracted hereunder:- (“Language”) 11. However, it is stated in Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid Circular dated, 13.10.1990 that the Special Officer should obtain prior permission before giving any increase or revision in the salary of the employees of the Co-operative Society. 12. The second respondent, while passing the order of punishment has not stated that the petitioner increased the salary/revision to the concerned employees in the three Societies beyond 2% of the current capital of those Societies. The only finding was that she failed to get prior permission from the second respondent before giving the increase. In those circumstances, the second respondent thought it fit to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 13. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the contention of the petitioner that the expenditure due to the increase in salary was within the limit of 2% of the working capital. In those circumstances, the second respondent thought it fit to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 13. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the contention of the petitioner that the expenditure due to the increase in salary was within the limit of 2% of the working capital. But for not taking prior permission, the first respondent was inclined to enhance the punishment. 14. When the punishing authority was of the view that imposition of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect is sufficient, particularly, taking note of the fact that the increase given by the petitioner to the employees in their salary was within the permissible norms, the first respondent is not correct in enhancing the punishment. Furthermore, the respondents did not cancel the enhancement of salary given by the petitioner to those employees, since the same was within the permissible limit. The only reason given is that she did not get prior permission, for which the second respondent thought it fit to impose the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Hence, I am of the view that the first respondent is not correct in enhancing the punishment imposed by the second respondent. 15. In the result, the order passed by the first respondent, dated 11.07.2002 enhancing the punishment to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent, dated 29.09.2000. The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.