ORDER : The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 24.11.2014 and the consequential order passed by the 1 st respondent dated 16.04.2015 as well as seeking further consequential relief to reinstate with full back wages. 2. The petitioner was employed as Village Administrative Officer, Pannal Village, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District and he was issued a charge memo dated 17.04.2013, which contemplated the following four charges. 3. The petitioner offered his explanations and not being satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed. After completion of the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted on 30.07.2014 and second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent, by order dated 24.11.2014, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. 4. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the 1 st respondent and the Appellate Authority, by order dated 16.04.2015, while rejecting the appeal and confirming the order of compulsory retirement imposed by the 2 nd respondent, had further enhanced the punishment and passed orders of removal from service against the petitioner. Further, the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner have also been attached in view of the loss caused by the petitioner to the Government for a sum of Rs.24,63,375/-. The Appellate Authority had referred to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.31945 of 2013, dated 15.07.2014 and based on the directions issued thereunder, the attachment of the properties was undertaken to safeguard against the loss. Assailing the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred the above Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though initially advanced arguments challenging both the original punishment and the enhancement made by the Appellate Authority, however later confined his submissions in respect of the order passed by the appellate authority enhancing the punishment of compulsory retirement to removal from service. It is his contention that, though the appellate authority is empowered to pass an order enhancing the punishment, still while the appellate authority chooses to do so, the provisions contemplated under proviso (ii) to Rule 23(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules: (hereinafter referred to as: 'Rules') had not been followed in this case and as such the order enhancing the punishment is vitiated and cannot be sustained. 6. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the appellate authority had conducted an enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner, still it was only in respect of the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority and after the appellate authority had come to a conclusion that the appeal is to be rejected confirming the punishment and further the punishment has to be enhanced, then it is for the authority to issue notice intimating the proposed punishment and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, in compliance to the mandatory provisions of Rule 23 (1)(c) proviso(ii). 7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the punishment that could be imposed for a charge memo under 17(b) of Rules could be only any of the punishments that are enumerated under Rule 8, the order of attachment issued by the Appellate Authority is beyond the powers contemplated under the Act and therefore, the attachment imposed is arbitrary and requires to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents by relying on the counter affidavit submitted that when huge loss has been caused to the Government to the tune of Rs.24,63,375/- and the same was taken note of by this Court and already a direction has been issued to take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner including the registration of a criminal case, only to safeguard the loss caused to the Government, the Authority had particularly referring to the directions, attached the properties of the petitioner which is perfectly in order. It is his further contention that, as per Rule 9(a) of the Rules, the 2 nd respondent is entitled to conduct the enquiry by himself where several acts of delinquency by many employees are involved. After affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had in fact committed the offence and due to which huge loss has been caused. The Appellate Authority which is vested with the power to enhance the punishment under Rule 23 of the Rules had imposed the punishment of removal from service. Further, he submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, a criminal case has also been registered as against the petitioner which is pending trial and therefore, challenge made to the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 10. Further, he submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, a criminal case has also been registered as against the petitioner which is pending trial and therefore, challenge made to the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioner while he was working as Village Administrative Officer was allegedly involved in certain irregularities whereby he allowed non- competent persons to avail the drought relief from the Government to a tune of Rs.24,63,375/-. As such a charge memo came to be issued on 17.04.2013 framing the above said four charges. 11. In fact, due to the huge drought situation prevailing in that area at that point of time, the Government through G.O.Ms.No.48 (Revenue Department), dated 13.02.2013 had granted a drought relief of Rs.15,000/- per acre to the land owners and cultivators and the crops were damaged more than 50% during the year 2012-13. On complaint from the villagers, it was found that the petitioner being incharge for taking assessment of the affected crops had involved in the irregularities by which the abovesaid amount has been paid to the ineligible persons. 12. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 25.09.2013 and not being satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.12.2013. Pursuant to the completion of enquiry, report was submitted on 05.02.2014 listing out the discrepancy found and the loss amount has been fixed at Rs.24,63,375/-. Based on the report, a revised charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent on 07.02.2014. Further charge was framed which reads as under: 13. Pursuant to the completion of enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges are proved. Based on the further response submitted by the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent vide order dated 24.11.2014 accepting the enquiry report had imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. Before imposing the punishment an opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner on 11.09.2014. 14. Challenging the punishment imposed, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the 1 st respondent. The appellate authority, vide order dated 16.04.2015 while rejecting the appeal confirming the punishment imposed by the 2 nd respondent, has further enhanced the punishment from compulsory retirement to that of removal from service. 14. Challenging the punishment imposed, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the 1 st respondent. The appellate authority, vide order dated 16.04.2015 while rejecting the appeal confirming the punishment imposed by the 2 nd respondent, has further enhanced the punishment from compulsory retirement to that of removal from service. Since the learned counsel is restricting his arguments in respect of the order passed by the Appellate Authority in enhancing the punishment, the submission raised in this regard alone is adverted to and the relevant portion of the Rule dealing with power of appellate authority to enhance punishment is extracted hereunder. Rule 23: Power and procedure of the Appellate Authorities Rule 23 (1)(c)(i) and the proviso (ii) are extracted hereunder: “23. (1) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in rule 8 or 9, the appellate authority shall consider. (a)..... (b)...... (c) whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate and pass orders. (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; Provided that- (i) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 8 and an inquiry under sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (c) of Rule 17, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 and thereafter, on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry make such orders as it may deem fit;(Vide G.O.Ms.No.117, P&AR(N) Department, dated 28.9.2011) (ii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 8 and an inquiry under sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, make such orders as it may deem fit;” 15. As per Rule 23(1)(c)(i), the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal is having the powers to either confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the penalty. Though the appellate authority is having the power to enhance the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the procedure that is contemplated under proviso (ii) to Rule 23(1)(c) is that when the Appellate Authority proposes to impose one of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) & (viii) of Rule 8 and where an inquiry under sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 has already been held as in the instant case, then the Appellate Authority shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed, on the basis of evidence may make such orders as it deems fit. 16. The provision leaves no manner of doubt that though the Appellate Authority is empowered to pass an order enhancing the punishment and impose a punishment of removal from service, and even when already an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 17 (b) had been undertaken, still the appellate authority if based on the evidence comes to a conclusion that an enhanced punishment is to be imposed then it is mandatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to issue a notice to the appellant indicating the proposed punishment to be imposed based on the evidence and afford him reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposed penalty. 17. The impugned order of the 1 st respondent, dated 16.04.2015, reveals that, in the appeal, the Appellate Authority had given reasonable opportunity to the appellant to provide documents to satisfy that the amount has been disbursed only to the eligible beneficiaries, and the appellant was not able to substantiate the same and thereby, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the charges framed as against the petitioner stands proved and no interference is required in the appeal. However, when the Appellate Authority had ordered that, in view of the evidences available, the punishment is enhanced from compulsory retirement to that of removal from service, then from the order it is able to be seen that no notice has been issued by the Appellate Authority affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity indicating the proposed punishment. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the impugned order is extracted for easy reference. 18. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the impugned order is extracted for easy reference. 18. As such, when the Appellate Authority had passed an order enhancing the punishment, admittedly the Authority had not followed the mandatory provisions as contemplated under proviso (ii) to Rule 23(1)(c) of the Rules. As the opportunity of making a representation before imposing the enhanced punishment had not been afforded to the petitioner, the enhanced punishment is not in consonance with the proviso (ii) to Rule 23(1)(c) and is also in violation of principles of natural justice. 19. In view of the above finding, the order of the 1 st respondent, insofar as enhancing punishment from compulsory retirement to that of removal from service, is liable to be interfered with and since there is a procedural violation, the matter is to be remanded back to the file of the 1 st respondent to pass fresh orders from the stage of issuing a notice as contemplated under proviso (ii) to Rule 23(1)(c) of the Rules. 20. Regarding the petitioner's submission that the movable and immovable properties had been attached and the authority is not empowered to pass an order of attachment, as it is not a punishment enumerated under Rule 8 of the Rules, it could be seen that though the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31945/2013, dated 15.07.2014 is not available but however, in the order passed by the 1 st respondent, the relevant portion of the orders passed in the Writ Petition has been referred, which is extracted hereunder: (3)....Hence the specific charges were made against the Village Administrative Officer, concerned under rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the 2 nd respondent vide Rc.7228/2013/A1. Dated: 07.02.2014. The Village Administrative Officer, concerned will be dealt with according to the procedures laid down under Tamilnadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In much as the severe disciplinary action has been taken against the Village Administrative Officer, concerned who is the route cause for the irregular payments at the field level. It is further submitted that after finalizing the detailed enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, Criminal Proceedings will be initiated on the outcome of the Enquiry report. (4) In view of the said averment in the counter affidavit, we are of the considered view that no further adjudication is required. It is further submitted that after finalizing the detailed enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, Criminal Proceedings will be initiated on the outcome of the Enquiry report. (4) In view of the said averment in the counter affidavit, we are of the considered view that no further adjudication is required. However, the respondent No.1 is directed to expedite the proposed action against erring officials. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected M.P.No.1 of 2013 is also closed. 21. As referred earlier, the Government had issued orders to compensate the land owners and farmers in respect of the severe drought and the petitioner was the person to assess the crops, based on which the drought relief was to be distributed to the farmers. However, the petitioner is found to have indulged in irregularities due to which ineligible persons had been disbursed with benefits, thereby causing loss to the Government's exchequer to the tune of Rs.24,63,375/-. In the dispute raised by the beneficiary before this Court, taking note of the serious irregularities caused, directions have been issued to the respondents to initiate criminal proceedings after taking note of the disciplinary proceedings already undertaken by them. 22. In compliance with the orders passed, already a criminal case has been registered, which is pending trial. Now, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was appointed only in the year 2009 and he is also not eligible for payment of pension. In such circumstances, the significant loss caused to the Government to the tune of Rs.24,63,375/-, needs to be redressed. As such, this Court is not inclined to disturb the attachment made in the order at this stage. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits in this aspect, the attachment is to continue till fresh orders are passed by the 1 st respondent on remand, where the authority shall take note of the objections made by the petitioner. It is also made clear that the observations made are for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition and it shall not have any bearing effect on the trial which the petitioner is undergoing. 23. In view of the above deliberations, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. It is also made clear that the observations made are for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition and it shall not have any bearing effect on the trial which the petitioner is undergoing. 23. In view of the above deliberations, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the 1 st respondent, dated 16.04.2015, insofar as enhancing the punishment alone is set aside and remanded back to the file of the 1 st respondent for passing fresh orders. While passing fresh order, after complying with the procedures as contemplated under proviso (ii) to Rule 23(1)(c) of the Rules, the issue in respect of attachment will also be taken note of and appropriate directions to be issued after hearing the objections of the petitioner in this regard. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.