ORDER : 1. By this common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment order dated 18.05.2012 bearing Na.Ka.No.12010/C2/E3/2011 passed by the 2 nd respondent, Joint Director of School Education (Personnel). By the Impugned Order, dated 18.05.2012, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally by issuance of a Charge Memo during March, 2011 in respect of alleged sexual mis-behaviour, while working at Periasiruvathur, Villupuram District as a 'History Teacher'. 3. The charges framed against the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent in the Charge Memo are as under: 4. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1955') was contrary to Rule 8 of Rules, 1955. It is submitted that the aforesaid punishment is not contemplated under Rule 8 of Rules, 1955 and therefore, the punishment imposed vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012 bearing Ref. Na.Ka.No.12010/C2/E3/2011 is liable to be quashed. That apart, it is submitted that any mandatory requirement of second proviso to Rule 17 of Rules, 1955 has also not been followed. 5. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the aforesaid punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years was imposed vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012, in reality, the respondent had implemented the punishment of also withholding increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 6. It is submitted that if the intention was to withhold increment for a period of two years, the mandatory requirement of second proviso to Rule 17(a) of Rules, 1955 ought to have been followed, as the aforesaid punishment impact the pension payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that after Impugned Punishment Order dated 18.05.2012 was passed, the petitioner was not allowed to rejoin duty. 7. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 30.06.2012 pursuant to which the petitioner was reinstated in service on 17.06.2013. It is further submitted that after Impugned Punishment Order dated 18.05.2012 was passed, the petitioner was not allowed to rejoin duty. 7. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 30.06.2012 pursuant to which the petitioner was reinstated in service on 17.06.2013. It is further submitted that the period between 18.05.2012 and 17.06.2013 should be treated as the petitioner having served and therefore, the petitioner should be paid salary and attendant benefits, as the petitioner had superannuated during the pendency of the present writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Charge Memo states that the Statement of the Case, and the documents relied upon were furnished along with. However, the Charge Memo does not enclose a copy of the Statement of the Case, which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Rules, 1955. 9. That apart, it is submitted that the Inquiry Report was also not furnished to the petitioner and therefore, the penalty imposed vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012 was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for sexual mis-behaviour of minor children from the School, without any evidence. It is also stated that the petitioner was not allowed to cross- examine any of the witnesses, as no witnesses were produced during the enquiry and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that although the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of salary for a period of two years, indeed it has been implemented by withholding the increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect as in the Impugned Order and therefore, the impugned order does not merit any interference. 11. Consequently, it is submitted that W.P.No.28447 of 2014 has been filed to direct the respondents to treat the period between 18.05.2012 and 17.06.2013 as a period spent on duty, with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay full salary to the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the charges against the petitioner are serious and therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the charges against the petitioner are serious and therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the statements given by students and the content of the Charge Memo dated 18.05.2012 at Page Nos.11 and 12, and therefore submits that no lenience should be shown to the petitioner. 13. This Court have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 14. The charges against the petitioner are serious in nature, and the allegations are based on statements recorded from minors who were studying in the 9 th std at the time when the petitioner appears to have behaved indecently with them. After the petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide Impugned Order dated 18.05.2012, he appears to have accepted the same and had only requested the respondents to reinstate him in service as the disciplinary proceedings have culminated vide Representation dated 30.06.2014. Pursuant to which, vide the proceedings dated 11.06.2013, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin duty. 15. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 imposing punishment on the petitioner cannot be maintained, as the petitioner had acquiesced the same and based on which the request of the petitioner to reinstate him in service was also acceded to. Although there is an error in the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide the impugned order by withholding the increment for a period of two years, the respondents were justified in imposing the said punishment of withholding of salary and increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 16. For imposing such a punishment, the respondents ought to have proceeded against the petitioner in terms of second proviso to Rule 17(a) of Rules, 1955. However, since the petitioner did not challenge the proceedings immediately and waited until the order was passed on 11.06.2013, reinstating the petitioner in service to file the writ petition on 27.10.2014, it has to be held that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned punishment order. 17. Although, there are certain procedural irregularities committed by the respondents, the implementation of the punishment vide impugned punishment order dated 18.05.2012 has been corrected by the respondents. 17. Although, there are certain procedural irregularities committed by the respondents, the implementation of the punishment vide impugned punishment order dated 18.05.2012 has been corrected by the respondents. The petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance for the period during which he was not in service due to the punishment that was imposed on him. 18. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the amount ought to have been paid to him immediately for the period between 18.05.2012 and 11.06.2013 and the aforesaid period shall be counted as the qualifying period for pensionary benefits. 19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with above directions. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.