5.Pursuant to the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 25.04.2008. Since the petitioner's explanation was not satisfied, the fourth respondent has appointed Cooperative Sub Registrar, Valangaiman, as Enquiry Officer, on 07.06.2008. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.09.2008 by giving report that were not proved. But the fourth respondent has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and called for the further explanation from the petitioner on 29.09.2008. The petitioner also submitted his further explanation on 20.10.2008. The third respondent, after examining the entire records, came to a conclusion that charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the said punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent, after examining all material records in connection with the appeal, modified the punishment into stoppage of increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect by his order, dated 09.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the first respondent, which was dismissed on 30.11.2010.
