Judgment :- (This Petition is filed to set aside the orders of the second respondent dated 1.4.99 made in R.C.No.52037/API(i)/99, the third respondent dated 13.10.98 made in C.No.AP60/D2/98 and the fourth respondent dated 17.6.98 made in R.C.No.J1/PR.91/97.) The petitioner has initially filed O.A.No.2228 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the fourth respondent dated 17.6.98 made in R.C.No.J1/PR.91/97, the third respondent dated 13.10.98 made in C.No.AP60/D2/98 and the second respondent dated 1.4.99 R.C.No.52037/API(i)/99. Subsequently, the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as W.P.32864 of 2005. 2. By the charge memo dated 11.9.97 the following allegations were levelled against the petitioner:- "You are the Head Constable working in Sathy P.S. From 18.5.97. On 18.7.97 you obtained the signature of one Thangavelu S/o. Sengodagounder, Kurikkaranplayam, Erode in two white papers who was admitted in Govt. Hospital, Sathy with some head injuries and as per the instructions of the Sub Inspector T.M.Ganesan you filled up the blank white sheet containing the signature of Thangavelu as if Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Easwaramurthy assaulted him and caused injury." 3. For the said allegation, an enquiry was conducted and by an order dated 17.6.98 punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect was imposed. As against this the petitioner has filed an appeal before the third respondent and the third respondent has also confirmed the said punishment. As against that the petitioner has filed an appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent has also confirmed the said punishment. Challenging this the petitioner has filed the above O.A./W.P. 4. The allegation levelled against the petitioner as per the charge memo, the petitioner in connivance with the Inspector of Police-Ganesan has obtained signature of one Thangavelu S/o. Sengoda gounder in two white papers while he was admitted in the hospital and filled the blank white papers as if one Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy assaulted and caused injury to him. Besides, the petitioner in spite of his full knowledge that the above said allegations against Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy are not correct, registered a false criminal case against the two persons who in fact were not responsible in any manner for the injuries sustained by the said Thangavelu. Besides, the petitioner in spite of his full knowledge that the above said allegations against Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy are not correct, registered a false criminal case against the two persons who in fact were not responsible in any manner for the injuries sustained by the said Thangavelu. By this act, according to the charge memo, the petitioner had committed neglect of duty, reprehensible conduct and lack of devotion to duty. The said Thangavelu has been examined as P.W.1 in the enquiry. In the said enquiry even as per the minutes drawn by the Enquiry Officer it is stated as follows;- "4. . . There after shanmuga Ramasamy challenged that if he was finished with Pattakathi his boss will also be finished and so saying he assaulted on his head heavily and Eswaramoorthy beat him with a stick in his right leg. On his raising alarm Murugan and Eswaran rushed to the spot and Shanmuga Ramasamy and Eswaramoorthy threw the Pattakathi and stick and went away and wish the help a way by lorry he came first to Sathy Govt. Hospital and got admitted and took treatment. Afterwards on 18.7.97 Morning at 8.00 AM the H.C present during the oral enquiry and PC came to the hospital and recorded statement from him and read over the statement to him and took him in a van to a different Govt. Hospital and admitted him." 5. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he was attacked by Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy. That apart as per evidence of the said Thangavelu also, the petitioner had not obtained any signature in the blank papers while he was in hospital. On 18.7.97 at 8.00 a.m. the petitioner recorded the statement from him and read over the contents of the same to him. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he had obtained signature of the said Thangavelu in blank paper but the said Thangavelu has deposed that his signature was not obtained in blank paper. However the statement was recorded by the petitioner in the hospital and the same was read over to him. The allegation relating to this is contrary to the fact and totally incorrect. 6. However the statement was recorded by the petitioner in the hospital and the same was read over to him. The allegation relating to this is contrary to the fact and totally incorrect. 6. Apart from this when Thangavelu-P.W.1 was attacked by Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy, the question of making false case against the said Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy by the petitioner does not arise at all. Apart from this, no motive has been brought to light so far as to foist a false case as against Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy, hence the finding of the enquiry officer is totally perverse. Besides (P.W.13) Head Constable-Subramaniam has also deposed before the enquiry officer that on receiving the intimation, the petitioner proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement and basing on the statement, First Information Report should be registered and a copy of the First Information Report is also available in the police station for making enquiries and also according to evidence, statement of Thangavelu has been recorded only in the hospital. 7. Even as per enquiry officer's report also enmity prevailed between Kumaraswamy, boss of Thangavelu and Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy. After making an enquiry into this, Shanmuga Ramasamy and his son Eswaramoorthy were instructed to meet District Superintendent of Police, Sathyamangalam. But neither Shanmuga Ramasamy nor his son Eswaramoorthy met the District Superintendent of Police. On the other hand they met Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai and basing on the petition presented by them the said charges have been framed against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. That apart, according to the enquiry officer's report also, based on the complaint made by Thangavelu to the police station on 18.7.97 at 5.15 hrs, the petitioner, on receiving the information, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement from Thangavelu. According to the enquiry officer's report also following the usual and normal procedure, petitioner also owe to took up the investigation and registered the case. That apart according to the enquiry officer's report also, a murder case is pending against Kumaraswamy boss of Thangavelu. As such the finding of the enquiry officer that the allegations are proved is totally incorrect. As such the punishment awarded to the petitioner basing on the said enquiry officer's report is also unsustainable and cannot be allowed to stand. That apart according to the enquiry officer's report also, a murder case is pending against Kumaraswamy boss of Thangavelu. As such the finding of the enquiry officer that the allegations are proved is totally incorrect. As such the punishment awarded to the petitioner basing on the said enquiry officer's report is also unsustainable and cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.