Judgment :- (This Writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.3534 of 2003 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of stoppage of increment passed by the 4th respondent in P.R.No.26/99, dated 17.2.2000, Appeal rejected in C.No.B1/Appeal.33/2000 dated 21.7.2000 by the third respondent, communicated in proceedings dated 1.8.2000 and review rejected by the second respondent in Rc.No.141734/AP.II(3)/03, dated 12.7.2003 and mercy petition rejected by the first respondent in Rc.No.161059/AP.II(3)/2003 dated 1.8.2003 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner in par with the juniors. ) In this petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the 4th respondent dated 17.2.2000, as confirmed in appeal by the 3rd respondent by order dated 21.7.2000, in review by the 2nd respondent by order dated 12.7.2003 and also in mercy petition by the 1st respondent by order dated 1.8.2003, and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with his juniors. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in Armed Reserve, Ramnad District and subsequently transferred to local Police in the year 1986. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable during 1994. The case of the petitioner is that his batchmates were promoted as Head Constables in the year 1999 itself, but he was not promoted on the ground that there was an allegation against him. Petitioner was posted to Kamudhi Police Station on 14.6.1998 and subsequently from 10.2.1999 he was posted to Sub Treasury Guard duty at Kamuthi. Then he was transferred to Jetti Out post, Rameswaram. While working so, petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 11.5.1999 on the allegation that he prevented the District Supply Officer from entering into the Tahsildar Office and misbehaved with him under the incluence of alcohol on 20.2.1999. 3. An oral enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rameswaram, in which the allegation against the petitioner was found to be proved and he was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for two years by order dated 17.2.2000. The appeal preferred by the petitioner as well as the subsequent review were also dismissed by orders dated 21.7.2000 and 12.7.2003 respectively. The mercy petition filed before the first respondent was also rejected on 1.8.2003. The appeal preferred by the petitioner as well as the subsequent review were also dismissed by orders dated 21.7.2000 and 12.7.2003 respectively. The mercy petition filed before the first respondent was also rejected on 1.8.2003. The specific case of the petitioner is that none of the respondents have considered petitioner's explanation, submitted during the enquiry and in the memorandum of appeal/review petition/mercy petition. Hence the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not on intoxicated state of mind and in fact the District Supply Officer was in a drunken mood at 23.55 hours on 20.2.1999. It is further argued that immediately after the incident, petitioner gave a complaint against the District Supply Officer and only to safeguard himself from further departmental action, a counter allegation has been given against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not in any way connected with the alleged charge. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate. 6. The complaint given by the petitioner at 23.55 hours on 20.2.1999 against the District Supply Officer is exhibited as Ex-4 and the same is explained by DW-3. The relevant extract of Para Book, namely Ex-4 is filed by the petitioner as a document in this writ petition among the typed set of papers filed on 17.2.2006, which reads as follows, In the above extract it is clearly stated that the District Supply Officer was in a drunken mood and the same was witnessed by the Head Constable Murugan, advocate Mahendran and watchman Gopal. The said Mahendran and Gopal gave helping hands to the District Supply Officer as he was not in a position to stand at the relevant time. The said advocate also gave a statement during the enquiry, apart from the said Gopal, Watchman of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Mudukulathur. The watchman has also deposed that the District Supply Officer was under intoxication and he only quarelled with Packiaraj, the petitioner herein. 7. On going through the above referred statements and the extract of Para Book, which was marked as Ex-4, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner had prevented the District Supply Officer as alleged in the charge. 7. On going through the above referred statements and the extract of Para Book, which was marked as Ex-4, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner had prevented the District Supply Officer as alleged in the charge. On the contrary the District Supply Officer was in a drunken mood and tried to enter into the office at mid night. Since the enquiry finding is on no evidence, the same shall be treated as perverse finding. Consequently, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the impugned order dated 17.2.2000 based on the said perverse finding, as confirmed in appeal and review as well as in the mercy petition dated 21.7.2000, 12.7.2003 and 1.8.2003 respectively, is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed. Since the punishment imposed on the petitioner is set aside, he shall be considered for promotion notionally from the date of his junior given promotion and monetary benefit shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of his actual promotion. Orders to that effect shall be passed by the concerned authority within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.