Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.6514 of 2009 dated 19.4.2012 insofar as reducing the punishment to stoppage of increment for five years without cumulative effect, by modifying the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect, imposed by the second respondent by order dated 13.3.2006. 2. The case of the appellant is that while the appellant was working as Co-Operative Sub-Registrar/Field Officer in Cheranmahadevi, in Palayamkottai Taluk from 13.9.1996 to 30.9.1999, allegations were made against the appellant and on reference to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings a charge memo was issued in TDP No.6 of 2002 on 28.8.2002 alleging that with corruptive motive and in abuse of official position, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.500/-each from one A.Subbiah, Executive Committee Member of the Society for sanctioning Housing Loan and accepted Rs.7,000/- on behalf of 14 beneficiaries. The second charge alleged was that the appellant demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/-from the said A.Subbiah. The third charge was that the appellant sanctioned Housing Loan for 12 ineligible persons violating the norms laid down in the bye-laws. The appellant denied all the charges by submitting explanation. The said explanation having been found not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted holding that charges 1 and 2 were not proved and charge No.3 alone was proved. Based on the said finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect by order dated 13.3.2006. The said punishment was confirmed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority and the said orders were challenged before the learned single Judge. 3. The learned single Judge gave a finding that charges 1 and 2 having been not proved with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe and the appellant being not the Loan Sanctioning Authority, which is the duty of the Board of Management of the Society, merely because the appellant had recommended certain ineligible names for sanction of loan, it cannot be termed that it was a deliberate attempt made by the appellant with an intention of making unlawful gain. Therefore, the learned single Judge treated the punishment as disproportionate to the gravity of allegation and modified the punishment as that of stoppage of increment for five years without cumulative effect. 4. Therefore, the learned single Judge treated the punishment as disproportionate to the gravity of allegation and modified the punishment as that of stoppage of increment for five years without cumulative effect. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that charge Nos.1 and 2 having been found as not proved, which has got direct bearing on charge No.3, the learned single Judge was not right in imposing the punishment and the appellant should have been exonerated without any punishment. Learned counsel also submitted that the allegation in charge No.3 itself is with respect to sanction of housing loan to 12 ineligible persons and the appellant being not vested with loan sanctioning power, charge framed itself is bad and the Enquiry Officer was not right in splitting charge No.3 as part (a) and (b) and re-writing the charge to the effect that the appellant, though has got no power to sanction loan, in fact recommended the names of ineligible persons for sanction of housing loan. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there was no loss to the Society as only one installment of the loan amount was released and subsequently, at the instance of the appellant the remaining part of the loan amounts were not released. The learned counsel also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the said findings of the Enquiry Officer erroneously and imposed a punishment, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority solely on the basis of the views furnished by TNPSC, which also proceeded on the basis that the appellant sanctioned Housing Loan to 12 ineligible persons and therefore there is total non-application of mind, procedural violation, and the punishment imposed is disproportionate. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Co-Op.) appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the appellant committed delinquency by wrongly recommending housing loan to 12 ineligible persons, which shows his dereliction of duty. Learned counsel further submitted that even though charge Nos.1 and 2 were not proved, only on the basis of recommendation of housing loan to 12 ineligible persons by the appellant, loans were sanctioned to them, and part of the loan amounts were also released by the Society to those 12 ineligible persons, which definitely caused loss to the Society. Therefore the appellant was imposed with punishment which was also modified by the learned single Jude, which requires no interference. 6. Therefore the appellant was imposed with punishment which was also modified by the learned single Jude, which requires no interference. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties. 7. It is a fact that the appellant was proceeded in respect of three charges. Charge Nos.1 and 2 relates to demanding and accepting bribe in respect and the said charges were not proved. This Court is concerned with charge No.3. Charge No.3 was drafted as if the appellant had sanctioned housing loan to 12 ineligible persons. On the plea raised by the appellant that he is not vested with the right to sanction loan, a finding was recorded that even though the appellant was not vested with the power to sanction housing loan, as per the charge, the loans were sanctioned solely on the recommendations made by the appellant to 12 ineligible persons, as recommendation for the sanction of loan from the lower level officer is a pre-requisite. Therefore there was an error of wordings in the charge, which is trivial, and that has caused no prejudice to the appellant and a finding was recorded to that effect i.e., appellant lacks devotion to duty without any motive. 8. In the Enquiry Officer's finding it is stated that there is ample evidence to show that the appellant visited the house of loan beneficieries before recommending loan, which was spoken to by Pws.4, 9 and 10 and the appellant was fully aware that the houses existed/constructed prior to sanction of loan, and yet he went ahead and recommended housing loans to 12 persons, which is in violation of the terms and conditions for the sanction of loan and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment. The appellant having aggrieved over the punishment imposed, preferred appeal before the first respondent/Government and while disposing of the appeal, the first respondent/Government sought the opinion of TNPSC through letter No.4772/CL1/2007-6, dated 16.7.2007 and 15.2.2008 and the Secretary, TNPSC through letter No.4493/DCD-C1/2007-1, dated 3.10.2008 gave his views. The said views/report was simply accepted by the Government while rejecting the appeal through G.O.(D)No.405 Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.12.2008. The views submitted by the TNPSC proceeds on the basis that the appellant as a Sanctioning Authority for housing loan, should have acted carefully before sanctioning loan. The said views/report was simply accepted by the Government while rejecting the appeal through G.O.(D)No.405 Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.12.2008. The views submitted by the TNPSC proceeds on the basis that the appellant as a Sanctioning Authority for housing loan, should have acted carefully before sanctioning loan. The said fact stated in the views of TNPSC was the only reason to disallow the appeal and the same is an erroneous finding of fact, as it is not even the case of the Disciplinary Authority. 9. As already stated, even as per enquiry findings, the appellant was not the Loan Sanctioning Authority and the allegations proved against the appellant itself is that he has recommended housing loans to 12 ineligible persons. The Appellate Authority simply accepted the views of the TNPSC and rejected the appeal. Thus, it is evident that TNPSC as well as the Government, while passing the order in appeal, have not considered the relevant and material facts, particularly with reference to the proved charge against the appellant and simply confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. If the said fact was properly appreciated, a different conclusion would have been arrived at regarding the punishment imposed by the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies. 10. This writ appeal is filed since the appellant is not satisfied with the punishment imposed by the learned single Judge and prayed for allowing writ appeal without any punishment. In view of the proved charge of erroneously recommending 12 beneficieries for housing loan, this Court is unable to entertain such a prayer. On the facts and circumstances of the case, any punishment required to be imposed against the appellant can be considered by the first respondent Government/Appellate Authority and only for that limited purpose, we are of the view that the order passed by the Government in GO(D)No.405 Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.12.2008, which was modified by the learned single judge, is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Government is remitted to the first respondent to consider the appeal afresh with regard to the punishment imposed against the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Government is remitted to the first respondent to consider the appeal afresh with regard to the punishment imposed against the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the order passed by the learned single Judge modifying the punishment as withholding of increment for five years without cumulative effect having not been challenged by the respondents, the Government can either cancel the entire punishment or impose a lesser punishment than the one recorded in the writ petition order i.e, stoppage of increment for five years without cumulative effect. The merits of the contention can be gone into by the first respondent independently, and the order of this Court will not stand in the way in any manner. The appellant has already attained the age of superannuation and therefore the punishment, if any to be imposed, should be in respect of recovery of increment amount alone. The writ appeal is allowed with the above directions. No costs.