(1) THE respondent was working as a Block Level Accountant in 1986 in Valangaiman. He was transferred to Kumbakonam Block and was relieved in the afternoon of 8/7/1986.

(2) DURING the period when the respondent was working as a Block Level Accountant at Valangaiman, it was found that there was shortage in the stocks of wheat and rice. There was a loss of 30 metric tons of wheat and 3 metric tons of rice valued at Rs 51,300.00. Thereupon, initially the Block Development Officer issued orders for recovery of the amount from the respondent. The District Collector set aside the order of the Block Development Officer and directed him to pass appropriate orders after holding a proper enquiry. On 18/9/1988, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry. He was served with a charge-sheet containing three charges. The first charge was related to his making unauthorised entries of deduction in the stock register on various dates relating to different quantities of foodgrains as specified in the charge. The second charge was that he was responsible for a large-scale misappropriation of foodstock in his custody and the third charge was that by his above action, he had caused loss to the government. After hearing the respondent and examining the witnesses, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 13/11/1989 holding the respondent guilty of the charges. The respondent was thereupon given a further hearing by the District Collector while considering the enquiry officers report. The respondent was also given an opportunity to make a epresentation against the findings in the enquiry officers report. After examining his representation, the disciplinary authority, namely, the District Collector, passed a final order dated 4/6/1991. The disciplinary authority, after examining the report of the enquiry officer and considering the respondents representation, has come to the conclusion that various quantities of wheat and rice were deducted from the stock register by the respondent by making entries in his own handwriting unauthorisedly on various dates specified therein and staling in his own handwriting that damage was caused due to rats and heavy rain. This defence of the respondent has been disbelieved by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has held that all the charges have been proved against the respondent.

(3) THEREAFTER in his order, the disciplinary authority has observed that as the delinquent is due to retire very soon from service on 30/6/1991, a lenient view is taken and a stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect is ordered for gross negligence and unauthorised entries in the stock registeR.The disciplinary authority has also directed that the loss of Rs 51,300.00 which has been caused by misappropriation of the stock of foodgrains be recovered in one lump sum from the respondent before his retirement on superannuation failing which the entire amount will be recovered from his retirement benefits. The period of suspension was also directed to be treated as service period but without pay.

(4) THE appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent retired on 30/6/1991. He, thereafter, in December 1992, filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal challenging the above orders. The tribunal set aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated 4/6/1991 insofar as it inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The tribunal also directed the appellant to pay the respondents salary for the period of suspension. It thus modified the punishment imposed.

(5) THE tribunal clearly had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority under the order of 4/6/19911. The tribunal has purported to pass the order on the ground that three punishments cannot be imposed for the same charge. Now, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Cla