ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 147218/C8/C31/03, dated 13.10.2004 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner was working as the Teacher under the respondent Department and at the time of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, he was working as Tamil Teacher at Government High School, Melagaram, Tirunelveli. Previously he was working as Tamil Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Kalinghapatty, Tirunelveli District. 3. The charge framed against the petitioner was that, from 14.08.1997 he had been unauthorisedly absent for nearly about two years without making any application for leave and no leave has been sanctioned. Therefore, based on the charge, disciplinary proceeding was initiated, where, an Enquiry Officer was appointed before whom the petitioner appeared and that the petitioner had made some allegations against the Headmaster of the School concerned, however, no evidence to that effect seems to have been filed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. 4. Moreover, before the Enquiry Officer what are the charges framed against the petitioner, especially in the context of unauthorisedly absent for two years since had been accepted by the petitioner, of course with the reason that, due to the family circumstances as well as some torture given by the School Headmaster, he could not concentrate and therefore, he could attend the duty for longer period and therefore, the said unauthorised absence can be condoned and the charges framed against him can be dropped, he contended. 5. Having considered the said defence taken by the petitioner, after admitting the fact that, he had been unauthorisedly absent for the duty for nearly about two years, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and accordingly, he has given a report to that effect. 6. 5. Having considered the said defence taken by the petitioner, after admitting the fact that, he had been unauthorisedly absent for the duty for nearly about two years, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and accordingly, he has given a report to that effect. 6. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the first respondent herein having given an opportunity to the petitioner by way of second show cause notice and after getting his explanation, has come to the conclusion that, in view of the proven charge against the petitioner, since, it is serious in nature as the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him was under 17(b) of the relevant Rules i.e. Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and therefore, for such proven charge, the Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion that, a punishment of withholding of increment by reduction of the same for six months without cumulative effect. As against the said order of punishment inflicted against the petitioner dated 13.10.2004, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 7. Mr. M. Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would first canvass the point that, only an oral enquiry summarily was conducted and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Moreover, there has been a reason for the petitioner for such unauthorised absence for longer period, which has been specifically stated by the petitioner in his defence statement before the Enquiry Officer either the same has not been properly considered or has not been considered in proper perspective and therefore, on these grounds, the report of the Enquiry Officer stating that, the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved, cannot be accepted and based on which, the penalty imposed against the petitioner through the impugned order by the first respondent Disciplinary Authority shall also be unsustainable. 8. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner on superannuation has subsequently retired from service, because of the punishment imposed against the petitioner, his pay and pensionary benefits since have been affected, the said punishment through the impugned order can be interfered with, he contended. 9. However, Mr. 8. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner on superannuation has subsequently retired from service, because of the punishment imposed against the petitioner, his pay and pensionary benefits since have been affected, the said punishment through the impugned order can be interfered with, he contended. 9. However, Mr. S. Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that, the charge itself framed against the petitioner was serious in nature as he unauthorisedly absent for two years and this factor has been accepted by the petitioner more than once during the disciplinary proceeding/enquiry and therefore, for such an unauthorised absence for long period, in fact, the major penalty of removal ought to have been inflicted against the petitioner, but taking a very lenient view, the Disciplinary Authority has inflicted only the punishment of cut in increment for six months without cumulative effect, which is a bare minimum punishment, that too for a proven charge. Therefore, absolutely there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the punishment imposed against the petitioner, he contended. 10. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the charge framed against the petitioner is serious in nature as admittedly he had been unauthorisedly absent for nearly about two years and this factor has been accepted by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and this has been discussed by the Enquiry Officer in his report, which has been taken into account by the first respondent Disciplinary Authority and the relevant portion of the same, as reflected in the impugned order, is extracted hereunder for easy reference: Others Language 12. Therefore, for such a proven charge, which was framed under Rule 17(b) of the relevant Rule, this Court feels that, even a maximum punishment of removal of service could have been inflicted or still higher punishment than the one now has been imposed against the petitioner could have been imposed. 13. However, the Disciplinary Authority having taken a very lenient view has imposed only a minimum punishment of cut in increment for six months that too without cumulative effect. Therefore, the said punishment cannot be found to be a disproportionate one. 13. However, the Disciplinary Authority having taken a very lenient view has imposed only a minimum punishment of cut in increment for six months that too without cumulative effect. Therefore, the said punishment cannot be found to be a disproportionate one. Therefore, there is no plausible reason available for this Court to interfere with the said punishment imposed against the petitioner through the impugned order. Hence, this Court feels that, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails, hence it is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed. No costs.