ORDER : K. Venkataswami, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2-2-1996 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, whereunder the Tribunal has set aside the order of removal of the respondent from service as Head Constable. In support of the order, the Tribunal has given two reasons, namely, one was that the charge memo was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was not the competent authority. The other reason was that the persons (co-delinquents), who were playing cards along with the respondent, had been let off by the Additional Director General of Police on the review petitions filed by those co-delinquents. The Tribunal ultimately quashed the impugned order of removal and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent in service with all service and monetary benefits within two months from the date of the receipt of the order. 2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. We find that the first reason given by the Tribunal is no longer sustainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan. On the other reason given by the Tribunal, we find that there is some force in the light of the order factually passed by the Additional Director General of Police. Inter alia, the Additional Director General of Police has stated, while allowing the review petitions, as follows: "I do not find anything wrong in a set of policemen playing cards while they are off-duty. 'Vettatam' is, of course, an offence under the Gambling Act. But it has not been proved by the prosecution that the game in progress, when the raid was conducted, was 'Vettatam'. I would rather hear men playing cards on duty than hearing them off-duty indulge in any mischief or misconduct. In these circumstances, I hold the charge as not proved and set aside the punishment." 3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel to get over the above order of the Additional Director General of Police was that the respondent herein was on duty while review petitioners before the Additional Director General of Police were off-duty. But the above extracted portion does not make any difference on that account. We hasten to add that we do not want to be understood that we have approved the above reasoning of the Additional Director General of Police. But the above extracted portion does not make any difference on that account. We hasten to add that we do not want to be understood that we have approved the above reasoning of the Additional Director General of Police. In the light of the order of the Additional Director General of Police on the review petitions filed by the co-delinquents, we consider that the penalty of order of removal is too harsh. 4. In the circumstances, we consider that the ends of justice would be met if we deprive the respondent of all the back wages as ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is modified by deleting that portion of the order granting back wages and retaining it in other respects. The respondent will get salary from the date on which he joins duty. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.