JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. 1. The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 09.01.2018 in W.P. No. 15494 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their description in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience. 2. The Petitioner, who was working as Health Inspector Grade – I at Primary Health Centre in Velmapalayam was trapped and arrested on 24.06.2003 by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Authorities, Coimbatore in an act of bribery stated to have been committed by him and he was placed on deemed suspension with effect from 24.06.2003. As he was attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2003, he was not allowed to retire, but retained in service until the prosecution for the criminal offence alleged to be committed by him, was concluded. The Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore by Judgment dated 18.12.2007 in the C.C. No. 10 of 2004, acquitted the Petitioner on extending the benefit of doubt to him. Thereafter, as per G.O. Ms. No. 251, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 21.04.1988, departmental action by way of disciplinary proceedings were taken against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, and the First Respondent, viz., the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai by order R. No. 089205(1)/DA/03/S2 dated 13.12.2010 held that the charges against the Petitioner had been proved and imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on him. In pursuance thereof, the First Respondent by another order R. No. 089205(2)/DA/03/S2 dated 13.12.2010, sanctioned 90% of the eligible pension and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the Petitioner who has been compulsorily retired from service as a penalty in terms of Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 14549 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 13.12.2010 passed by the First Respondent and sought for consequential direction to settle his terminal and monetary benefits from the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2003 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court. 3. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 14549 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 13.12.2010 passed by the First Respondent and sought for consequential direction to settle his terminal and monetary benefits from the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2003 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court. 3. The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition after hearing both sides, was of the view that the two punishments imposed on the Petitioner is not valid as no person can be punished twice for the same offence and accordingly, while upholding the penalty of compulsory retirement, quashed the deduction of 10% cut in pension and directed to refund the deducted amount of pension within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondents have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. S. Nandakumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 5. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents strenuously urged that it cannot be said that the deduction of pension by 10% is a separate punishment in addition to the compulsory retirement imposed on the Petitioner since it is merely a consequential action in the exercise of power under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. It is further explained that since the punishment of compulsory retirement had been imposed on 13.12.2010 after the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2003, it would be meaningless to grant him full pension as it would otherwise amount to not imposing any punishment at all on the Petitioner. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in response, accepted the correctness of the aforesaid contention, but pointed out that the Respondents have not satisfied the requirements under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which stipulates, inter alia, that a reasonable opportunity of making representation in the matter has to be afforded to the delinquent employee, before reducing the amount of pension, and in such circumstances, the order directing the reduction of pension by 10% has been rightly quashed by the Writ Court. 7. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that in terms of Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the Respondents were justified to exercise the power conferred therein to reduce 10% of the pension of the Petitioner. In this regard, reference may be made to Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which is extracted below:- “39. Compulsory retirement pension:- (1) A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity, or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full compensation pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. (2) Whenever in the case of a Government servant the Government passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under these rules, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall be consulted before such order is passed. Explanation.- In this sub-rule, the expression “pension” includes gratuity. (3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-rule (1) or as the case may be under sub-rule (2) shall not be less than the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 43.” On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the pension of the Government servant, who has been compulsorily retired from service as a measure of penalty, is liable to be reduced at such rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full amount of pension on the date of his compulsory retirement. Inasmuch as the Writ Court without even referring to Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, has held that the reduction in the pension of the Petitioner, who had been compulsorily retired from service, would amount to punishing him twice, the said conclusion cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. 8. Inasmuch as the Writ Court without even referring to Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, has held that the reduction in the pension of the Petitioner, who had been compulsorily retired from service, would amount to punishing him twice, the said conclusion cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. 8. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the requirements of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, had not been complied while reducing the pension in the exercise of power under Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, cannot be accepted for the reason that clause (6) of that Rule itself states that nothing contained in that Rule shall apply where a part of pension has been reduced under Rule 39 of those Rules. Though the Petitioner had also challenged the order of compulsory retirement in the Writ Petition, the same had not been interfered by the Writ Court and no appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner against that part of the order and as such, the question of examining the correctness of the same in this appeal filed by the Respondents, does not arise for consideration. 9. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 09.01.2018 in W.P. No. 15494 of 2011 is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.