ORDER : G.T Nanavati, J. 1. The respondent was employed as a Sub-Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Special Police. On 16-1-1987, when he was on duty at the Madras City Police Control Room, Egmore, an incident took place at about 1 a.m. involving one Smt Gunaseeli who was sleeping on the platform on Greams Road. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Additional District Magistrate and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras and, thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent. The following three charges were framed against him: (1) Grave misconduct in having misbehaved with one Smt Gunaseeli near Ajmeer Hotel on Greams Road, Madras on 16-1-1987 at 0100 hrs. (2) Misusing his official position to cover up the incident. (3) Grave misconduct in not allowing the local police officers to discharge their duties on 16-1-1987. 2. An enquiry was conducted into the charges by the Assistant Commandant and all the three charges were found to have been established by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, viz., the Commandant, by order dated 6-1-1989, imposed the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years without affecting his future increments. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, however, suo motu reviewed the said order and after issuing notice to the respondent, by order dated 25-5-1989, the punishment was enhanced to compulsory retirement. The respondent filed a petition (OA No. 869 of 1989) before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein he assailed the said order of compulsory retirement. By the impugned judgment dated 24-3-1992, the Tribunal has found that Charge 1 was not proved, but Charges 2 and 3 were proved. Instead of the punishment of compulsory retirement, the Tribunal has imposed the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years without affecting future increments. The appellant seeks to assail the said order of the Tribunal. The question which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Charge 1 was not proved and, on that view, in interfering with the punishment imposed on the respondent. 3. The appellant seeks to assail the said order of the Tribunal. The question which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Charge 1 was not proved and, on that view, in interfering with the punishment imposed on the respondent. 3. Insofar as Charge 1 is concerned, the said charge is sought to be proved by three witnesses, viz., Smt Gunaseeli, PW 1, the person with whom the respondent is said to have misbehaved, and Smt Parvathy, PW 2 and Smt Annammal, PW 3. PW 1 has stated that on the night of 16-1-1987, when she was sleeping with her husband and children on the platform in front of Ajmeer Hotel at Greams Road, one person who was wearing a white shirt and green lungi came near her and tried to remove her clothes and when she woke up, she saw that the man was going towards TSP Compound. During the course of cross-examination, she stated that she did not see the respondent lifting her saree and that as it was dark, she could not identify him. She also said that the respondent did not misbehave with her. The other two witnesses, namely, PW 2 and PW 3, have stated that the respondent had placed his hand on the person of PW 1. The case of the respondent is that when he was returning from Ajmeer Hotel after taking dinner, he fell down near Ajmeer Hotel and some currency notes and coins fell down from his shirt and were scattered on the platform near PW 1 and that he picked up those coins, which was mistaken by PWs 2 and 3 as his putting his hand on PW 1. 4. Although the Tribunal has observed that it is not the function of the Tribunal to review the decision and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence and that if there be some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the adequacy or the reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has re-appreciated the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 and has discarded the testimony of PW 1 in the view that there was prevarication in her statement recorded at the time when she filed the complaint and in the statement recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal also discarded the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 on the ground that they were totally unreliable. 5. In our view, the said approach of the Tribunal in re-appreciating the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 cannot be upheld. It is settled law that the Tribunal, while exercising its power of judicial review in respect of disciplinary action taken against a Government servant, cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced to prove the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. As to whether the charge is established has to be considered in the light of the evidence that has been adduced in the disciplinary proceedings. If the matter is thus considered, it cannot be said that the respondent was not involved in the incident because PW 1 has stated that a person whom she could not identify had tried to remove her clothes and PW 2 and PW 3 have stated that the respondent had laid his hands on PW 1 while she was sleeping on the platform. This conduct on the part of the respondent certainly amounts to misconduct. The Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that Charge 1, in its totality, has not been established. 6. As regards Charges 2 and 3, the Tribunal has found both the charges to be established. In that context, the Tribunal has referred to the evidence of Head Constable 4100, PW 4, who has stated that the respondent had misused his official position and thereby threatened to harm him and other police constables who were on duty. Charge 3 involved a grave misconduct of not allowing the local police officers to discharge their duties on 16-1-1987. Having regard to the fact that the respondent was holding the post of Sub-Inspector in the Special Police and the gravity of the charges found established against him, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment of compulsory retirement that was imposed on the respondent. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the penalty of compulsory retirement was too severe in the facts of the case. 7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and OA No. 869 of 1989 filed by the respondent is dismissed. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the penalty of compulsory retirement was too severe in the facts of the case. 7. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and OA No. 869 of 1989 filed by the respondent is dismissed. The respondent would be paid retirement benefits payable to him on the basis of the order of compulsory retirement. It is stated that the respondent has not been paid retiral benefits. The appellants shall take steps to compute the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the respondent and pay the same to him within two months. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.