The main legal point established is the requirement for proportionality in imposing and enhancing punishment, considering the nature of misconduct and absence of loss or stock deficit.

1. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Godown at Bhavani during the year 1995. On 18.08.1995, when the higher officials of the corporation conducted surprise inspection of the said godown, certain irregularities were noticed on the part of the petitioner. The first irregularity is that the petitioner had allowed to load 51 bags of boiled rice in a mini lorry bearing Registration No. TN45A 9045 from Ananda Rice Mill Godown, attached to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown, Bhavani, without any issue memo or delivery order. Similarly, she had allowed to load 16 bags of boiled rice in a mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-0525 from Ananda Rice Mill Godown attached to Bhavni Godown without any issue memo or delivery order. Based on these allegations, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplied Corporation Limited, Erode, in his proceedings in reference No.E9/5389/59 (1) dated 10.02.1997.

2. The petitioner denied the charges. An enquiry was held into the charges. It was found that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct under both the charges. Based on the same, the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Erode by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 5389/95/89, dated 24.02.1999, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner did not challenge the same. Subsequently, the second respondent by his proceedings in Rc.No.G4.89405/99(i) dated 01.12.1999 issued a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. It is a suo motu action by the second respondent. The petitioner duly submitted his explanation for the same. Not having been satisfied with the same, the second respondent by his proceedings in No. G4/89405/99 (1) dated 13.11.2000 enhanced the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order, the petitioner made an appeal to the first respondent. That was dismissed by the first respondent on 04.07.2002, thereby confirming the said enhanced punishment. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this court with this writ petition.

3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the recorawards carefully.

4. Admittedly, as against the original order of punishment imposed by the Regional Manager, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that she is not guilty of the charges. Now, the only issue to be decided is the proportionality of the punishment imposed to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the stoppage of increment for one year that too without cumulative effect was considered to be an appropriate punishment by the Regional Manager. But, belatedly the show cause notice dated 01.12.1999 was issued by the second respondent for enhancement of the punishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there is no limitation prescribed in the regulations of the Corporation for such a suo motu action, he does not mean that it can be taken at any belated stage. For these proposition, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 182 and 12 of 2012 (K. Kumar Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Kilpauk, Chennai) dated 06.08.2012.

6. I have considered the above submissions.

7. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed for such a suo motu action by the second respondent for the purpose of enhancing the punishment. It is also settled law that in such an event such a suo motu action should be initiated within a reasonable time. In the Division Bench Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the del