Judgment :- (This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.4429 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the respondents 1 and 2 in connection with the impugned orders passed by them in R.O.No.37/97; C.No.B2/PR.68/96 dated 24.1.1997 and C.No.3466/AP 1(2)/2002, dated 26.4.2002 respectively and quash the same.) Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents dated 24.1.1997 and 26.4.2002 respectively, in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the affidavit are as follows, (a) Petitioner entered into the service of Police Department as Gr.I Police Constable on 1.2.1972. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1982 and as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1991. In his service petitioner has received 95 rewards and had not come to any adverse notice so far. (b) From 8.4.1992, the petitioner was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes), Sriperumputhur and prior to that he was working in Shivakanchi Police Station. Whileso, on 20.11.1990 he registered a case against one Bakthavatchalam in crime No.685/1009 under section 411 IPC and after investigation, he filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram and the case was numbered as CC.No.1300 of 1990. Before commencement of trial in the said case, on 9.3.1991 the petitioner was transferred to Manimangalam Police Station and then to the Sriperumputhur Police Station. (c) It is further stated in the affidavit that during trial in C.C.No.1300 of 1990, the Shivakanchi Police did not produce any witnesses in the Court. Petitioner also did not receive any summons for his examination as a witness in the said case. Hence the learned Judicial Magistrate made an observation that in spite of several adjournments granted for producing prosecution witnesses, the police did not produce the witnesses and finally discharged the accused under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the prosecution had not taken any steps to produce the witnesses. (d) It is the case of the petitioner that instead of taking action against the concerned Officer, who served at the Shivakanchi police Station at the relevant time, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo alleging that the petitioner committed negligence of duty in not attending the Court from 5.6.1991 to 5.2.1992. Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. (d) It is the case of the petitioner that instead of taking action against the concerned Officer, who served at the Shivakanchi police Station at the relevant time, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo alleging that the petitioner committed negligence of duty in not attending the Court from 5.6.1991 to 5.2.1992. Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumputhur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, before whom the petitioner submitted two documents to prove that he was not responsible to attend the prosecution case after his transfer from the Shivakanchi Police Station in the year 1991. The Enquiry Officer, accepting his explanation, by his report dated 7.9.1996 held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. (e) Disagreeing with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent herein issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that the charge against him has been proved and directed him to submit his explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 9.1.1997 and thereafter, the first respondent by order dated 24.1.1997 imposed a punishment of reduction of pay for one stage for one year without cumulative effect. The review petition filed by the petitioner against the said punishment was also rejected by the second respondent by order dated 26.4.2002. Hence the present writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in paragraph 5, the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram stated as follows, "The case was posted on 03.04.92 and 29.04.92 for his evidence as seen from the case diary dated 05.03.92 (page 93), 03.04.1992 (page 97) and 29.04.1992 (page 97) and the accused officer who was IO in Shivkanchi Police Station Cr.No.685/90 u/s 411 IPC had not attended the Court. Non-appearance of the witnesses in the Court due to non- receipt (or) non service of summons have been indicated in the CD file. It is seen clearly from the CD file and the judgment copy (Ex.92), that the delinquent Sub-Inspector of Police, who was IO in the above case did not attend the court and that the case ended in acquittal due to non-appearance of the I.O.(i.e) applicant. ..." 4. It is seen clearly from the CD file and the judgment copy (Ex.92), that the delinquent Sub-Inspector of Police, who was IO in the above case did not attend the court and that the case ended in acquittal due to non-appearance of the I.O.(i.e) applicant. ..." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is true that the case was investigated by the petitioner and he filed charge sheet while he was serving in the Shivkanchi Police station, but subsequently he was transferred to Manimangalam Police station on 9.3.1991 and thereafter to Sriperumputhur Police Station. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the explanation dated 7.11.1993, the petitioner specifically pointed out that no summon was received by the petitioner directing him to attend the Court during trial in the above case and no information either written or oral was received by him in this case. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not having any knowledge about the date of trial of the case and that the concerned Police had not taken effective steps in this regard, and moreso, that is the finding given in the criminal Court judgment. The learned counsel further pointed out that the enquiry officer rightly appreciated the fact of non service of summons, which is recorded in the case diary itself as stated in the counter affidavit, referred to above, and came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. However, the disciplinary authority erroneously differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued the show cause notice as if he was satisfied with the delinquency of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the said decision of the disciplinary authority in differing from the findings of the Enquiry officer is not only a perverse one but also erroneous finding, contrary to the records. The learned counsel further argued that the ultimate order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are on no evidence and therefore the punishment imposed against the petitioner is totally arbitrary and illegal. 5. The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents argued that due to non appearance of Investigating Officer, the criminal case ended in acquittal and only for that reason the petitioner was proceeded with as he was the Investigating Officer in the said case. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 5. The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents argued that due to non appearance of Investigating Officer, the criminal case ended in acquittal and only for that reason the petitioner was proceeded with as he was the Investigating Officer in the said case. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The point in issue is as to whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is sustainable or not. Admittedly the case diary clearly discloses the non receipt (or) non service of summons as the reason for non appearance of the witnesses. It is not the case of the respondents/department that the Shivkanchi Police ever intimated about the hearing of the case to the delinquent Officer. In the absence of any proof to that effect, as rightly concluded by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner is not guilty of non appearance and there is no substance in the charge levelled against the petitioner. In the light of the case diary and the Enquiry Officer's report, the action of the Disciplinary Authority in differing with the Enquiry Officer's report is without any basis. There is no valid reason given by the disciplinary authority as to why he is differing from the Enquiry Officer's report, based on which the punishment was imposed. 7. For the above reasons, I hold that the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved as rightly found by the Enquiry Officer and therefore the order of disciplinary authority, the first respondent herein dated 24.1.1997 and that of the second respondent dated 26.4.2002 are set aside.