Judgment :- (This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.1086 of 1989 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the order of removal of the petitioner from service made in P.R.No.128/85, dated 18.3.1986 as confirmed by the second respondent in his proceedings C.no.18/AP/86 dated 15.3.1988 and as confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings D.Dis.133566/PRI(2)/88 dated 28.7.88 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.) Petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order of removal from service dated 18.3.1986, as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 15.3.1988 and further confirmed by the first respondent in his order dated 28.7.1988 and seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows, (a) Petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gudalur, Nilgris District and during October, 1985, he was transferred to the Single Digit Finger Print Section, Ootacamund. On 31.10.1985 he was on leave and went to the Office of the Superintendent, Single Digit Finger Print Section, to claim his pay. (b) It is the case of the petitioner that the occupants of that office made grave and false allegations against him as if he was under drunken mood and created a scene that he scolded the Superintendent and others in filthy language. With regard to the said incident a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 4(1)(j) of the TNP Act read with Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. Petitioner was sent for medical examination on 31.10.1985 at 5.50 p.m and the Medical Officer at the Government Officer, Ooty, who examined the petitioner, certified that the petitioner was not under the influence of liquor. However, petitioner was placed under suspension from 1.11.1985. According to the petitioner, the criminal case registered against the petitioner was dropped in view of the initiation of departmental action and the report in this regard is dated 18.3.1986. However, petitioner was placed under suspension from 1.11.1985. According to the petitioner, the criminal case registered against the petitioner was dropped in view of the initiation of departmental action and the report in this regard is dated 18.3.1986. (c) It is the further case of the petitioner that he was issued with a charge memo on 5.11.1985 for the above said incident and the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted enquiry. Petitioner states that during enquiry eight witnesses were examined and all the eight witnesses were departmental witnesses and no independent witness was examined, even though according to the case of the Department, many public witnessed the incident on 31.10.1985. Medical Officer, who examined the petitioner and issued the certificate was also not examined. In the enquiry the charge framed against the petitioner was held to be proved. Thereafter, the third respondent by his order dated 18.3.1986 removed the petitioner from service. (d) It is the further case of the petitioner that he challenged the said order of removal before the second respondent on several grounds, but the appellate authority, without considering the points raised, after two years, passed a non-speaking order by his proceeding dated 15.3.1988 and rejected the appeal. Against that order, petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, who also rejected the revision by his order dated 28.7.1988. The said order of removal, as confirmed in appeal and revision is now challenged in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the charge itself is baseless as the charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in a drunken mood, scolded the Office Superintendent, but the state of drunken mood was not established, is evident from the Doctor's certificate, and that the actual word by which the petitioner scolded the Superintendent is also not disclosed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the charge is vague and the petitioner was prevented from defending the case properly. The learned counsel further argued that no independent witness was examined and all the witnesses examined are departmental witnesses, who are biased against the petitioner and subordinate to the Office Superintendent and they might have been influenced. The learned counsel further argued that the appellate authority failed to follow rule 23(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The learned counsel further argued that the appellate authority failed to follow rule 23(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Ultimately the learned counsel submitted that in any event, the extreme punishment imposed upon the petitioner for the trivial charge is excessive and the same is disproportionate . 4. I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate. 5. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, provides that the appellate authority shall consider whether the facts on which the order was passed have been established; whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate and pass orders confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or remitting the case to the authority, which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The rule further provides that the appellate authority shall make a speaking order. 6. (a) A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1983 (2) MLJ 513 (Srinivasan v. Government of Tamil Nadu) held what are the duties of the appellate authority under Rule 23, which reads thus, "Rule 23(1) gives a mandate to the appellate authority to consider: (a) whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; (b) whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate. Thus it is clear from a perusal of rule 23 that the appellate authority is enjoined to consider whether the facts on which the order of dismissal was passed had been established and the facts established afford sufficient grounds for taking action and whether the penalty is excessive or adequate." (b) In a subsequent decision reported in 2004(3) Law Weekly 32 (M.Nagarajan & Others v. The Registrar, High Court & Another) another Division Bench of this Court considered the scope of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and held that the said rule is a mandate to be followed and the appellate authority shall give reasons and shall not pass non-speaking order. 7. 7. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority clearly shows that the mandatory requirement under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is not followed in this case. Apart from that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge is trivial in nature for which the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge relates to the year 1985 and the punishment order was passed on 18.3.1986; order in appeal on 15.3.1988; and the order in revision on 28.7.1988 and hence no purpose will be served in remitting the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration at this distance of time and requested for modification of punishment in this proceeding itself. 9. Taking into consideration the nature of the charge; the manner in which the enquiry was conducted; disposal of appeal and revision by the authorities below in a casual manner and the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the interest of justice would be met by modifying the punishment of removal from service, to that of compulsory retirement with effect from 18.3.1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having more than 14 years of pensionable service and hence he is entitled to pension. The third respondent is directed to verify the said fact and if the petitioner is eligible to get pension, he shall prepare and submit pension papers of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The arrears of pension amount payable to the petitioner from 18.3.1986 shall be calculated, sanctioned and paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.