Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4724 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.9349 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the department of Economics and Statistics. He was sent on deputation as Godown Assistant to TASMAC and he was working in IMFS Depot, Tiruppur. Based on an anonymous petition, stock verification of the godown took place. During verification, some stock of IMFS Depot were found missing. Hence, certain charges were framed against the petitioner and a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules was issued to him. I am not going into the details of the enquiry and other proceedings, since the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and for the stock deficit, an amount of Rs.12,056/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in 24 installments. As far as handling loss was concerned, an amount of Rs.5,083/- was ordered to be recovered from the Loadman. Charges were also framed against one K.Chinnamuthu, Assistant Manager of the Depot and he was also imposed with the punishment of recovery of equal amount that was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the third respondent, dated 18.05.2001, imposing the punishment of recovery of Rs.12,056/- from his salary. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 27.06.2001, reduced the amount of recovery from Rs.12,056/- to Rs.11,283/-. The further appeal made by the petitioner before the first respondent was also rejected by an order dated 05.09.2001. The petitioner has filed this Original Application to quash the orders dated 18.05.2001 and 05.09.2001. 4. A reply affidavit was filed by the third respondent seeking to sustain the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is not all responsible for the loss of stock that was found during the inspection. According to the learned counsel, it is only the Loadman, who is responsible for the loss in stock. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such plea was taken either before the disciplinary authority or before the Appellate Authority or in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that such a plea was raised in the review. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such plea was taken either before the disciplinary authority or before the Appellate Authority or in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that such a plea was raised in the review. However, I am not inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As pointed out in the reply affidavit, the Loadman is responsible only for the breakage and an amount of Rs.5,083/- was recovered from the Loadman towards the breakage amount. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on an internal communication i.e., the letter addressed by the Manager (Purchase and Sales) to the Manager IMFS Depot, Tiruppur to establish that Loadman is responsible for handling loss. As far as this case is concerned, it is not a case of handling loss. On a surprise inspection of the godown, it was found that there was shortage of goods and both the Godown Assistant viz., the petitioner and the Assistant Manager of the TASMAC were held responsible for the loss. Though charges were framed under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules, a lenient view was taken and recovery alone was ordered. 8. In my considered view, the order passed by the respondents does not call for any interference from this Court. In fact, when the matter was admitted by the Tribunal, no stay was granted. In view of all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.