Judgment :- This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of punishment of removal from service passed against the Petitioner by Secretary to Government, Home (Police 1A) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, the Respondent herein and to grant him all consequential monetary and other reliefs. 2. According to the Petitioner, he was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1965 and he was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1974. Thereafter, in the year 1987, he was further promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and then Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1988. He was due for superannuation on 31.01.2002, but he was not allowed to retire from service and placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings issued in RC.No.279602/Cr.I(2)/99 dated 14.01.2000. It is the case of the Petitioner that during the course of his service, he received 200 medals and rewards and had never come to the adverse notice of the superior officials. That being the position, while he was serving as Assistant Commissioner of Police in Coimbatore, a case was registered in All Women Police Station, Coimbatore in Crime No.81/95 for suspicious death of a girl and the Inspector of Police by name Anbalagan, who was in charge of the Police Station, took up the Investigation of the case, examined the witnesses and after following the procedure, altered the Section of law under which earlier the case was registered to Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C and arrayed one Sundaraswamy @ Sundaram as an accused. Thereafter, regular Investigation and follow up action have been taken and the Petitioner had submitted a crime report to the higher officials. The Petitioner did not instruct the Head Constable of All Women Police Station to mention the time in the F.I.R. 3. Further case of the Petitioner is that he was the Assistant Commissioner of Police and below him there were other police personnel including Inspector of Police, who was at lapse in respect of prosecuting the accused and there were petitions against him. The matter was enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, who, on supervising the process of Investigation, confirmed that the Investigation was proceeding on correct lines. Charge Sheet was filed and the matter was committed to Sessions Court, Coimbatore. The matter was enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, who, on supervising the process of Investigation, confirmed that the Investigation was proceeding on correct lines. Charge Sheet was filed and the matter was committed to Sessions Court, Coimbatore. In the Trial before the Sessions Court, the Mother of the victim girl was examined and on a different version, learned Trial Judge ordered further Investigation, based on a Petition under Sec.173 (8) Cr.P.C., presented by the then Investigating Officer Samudragani. Thereafter, Additional Charge Sheet was filed and the Inspector of Police Anbalagan was arrayed as an accused along with others and Charge Sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 376, 302, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. Ultimately, the Criminal Case before the Sessions Court ended in total acquittal. Subsequently, along with the Petitioner, the First Investigating Officer Anbalagan and Second Investigating Officer one Pitchai were served with Charge Memo. Anbalagan and Pitchai being Inspector of Police, the Charge Memos were issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, Director General of Police had issued the Charge Memo. Thereupon, all the three approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Applications, challenging the Charge Memos on various grounds. The Tribunal after finding that the Charge Memo shall be deemed to have been issued by the Government, by an order dated 211. 2001, directed the Government to appoint a common Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry and to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Coimbatore was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of three officers, including the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report to the Government on 30.11.2002 and the same was communicated to the Petitioner and other delinquent officers. The Enquiry Report was to the effect that all the charges against the Petitioner stand proved. The Petitioner submitted his representation on 28.02.2003 to the Enquiry Officers Report and the Government finally passed an order on 012. 2004, imposing the punishment of removal from service, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 5. In the meantime, the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2000. The Petitioner submitted his representation on 28.02.2003 to the Enquiry Officers Report and the Government finally passed an order on 012. 2004, imposing the punishment of removal from service, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 5. In the meantime, the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2000. The Government passed orders not permitting the Petitioner to retire from service and placed him under suspension, because of which, he was not able to draw any terminal benefits. After the criminal case against the two Inspectors of Police viz., Anbalagan and Pitchai resulting in acquittal, as per the direction of the Tamil Nadu Adminitrative Tribunal, the Departmental proceedings have been concluded and ultimately, a punishment of removal from service was imposed against them on 28.03.2005 by the D.I.G, Salem range. They preferred an Appeal to the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai. On consideration of their Appeals, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, by an order dated 03.07.2005 passed the following order:- "..... On perusal of the records, it is noticed that the Enquiry Officer has failed to give credence to his explanation. From the report of Inspector General of Police / Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, it is seen that the investigation of the appellant is on the right lines and nothing to remark. It is seen from the Judgment that even after the inclusion of three more accused by his successor, the case ultimately ended in acquittal. As such, it is evident that there is only perfunctory investigation in this case for which the punishment of removal from service is on the higher side. Considering his 25 years of service and future aspects, the ends of Justice would be met if the punishment is modified. I therefore, take a lenient view and modify the original punishment of Removal from Service into that of "Reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years and reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of......" 6. Due to change of circumstances and developments which took place after filing of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has filed an Additional Affidavit stating that he has been discriminated in awarding punishment of removal from service whereas the subordinate Police Officers have been awarded lesser punishment on appeal and they have also been reinstated in service. Due to change of circumstances and developments which took place after filing of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has filed an Additional Affidavit stating that he has been discriminated in awarding punishment of removal from service whereas the subordinate Police Officers have been awarded lesser punishment on appeal and they have also been reinstated in service. According to him, against the order of punishment of removal from service by the Government, no Appeal remedy is provided under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short the "said Rules") except Review provided under Rule 20 of the said Rules. It was specifically submitted that as far as Anbalagan and Pitchai are concerned, they have preferred Appeals to the Director General of Police, Chennai and the Appellate Authority held that the delinquency committed by the delinquents are trivial and that the lapses in the investigation do not warrant the major punishment of dismissal from service and so holding, modified the punishment into reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. As this has been done in a later stage, the Petitioner could not make any efforts to prefer Review before the Government. The Petitioner has submitted various other grounds in the Additional Affidavit. On the above lines, the Petitioner has prayed this Court that his case may be considered on par with the co-delinquents. .7. The Respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit and denied all the averments in the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition. It has been stated that the Petitioner, who was aware of the fact that the Woman Inspector of Police and Woman Sub-Inspector of Police were away on other duty, had instructed the Woman Head Constable to register the case in All Women Police Station, East and directed the Inspector of Police, B-3 Kattur Police Station to take up the Investigation. Further, the Petitioner took three months time to submit his representations to the Enquiry Officers Report. The Secretary to Government, only after considering his case in accordance with rules, imposed the punishment of removal from service. Further, it has been stated that the delay in passing the final orders is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the bonafide administrative reasons. The Secretary to Government, only after considering his case in accordance with rules, imposed the punishment of removal from service. Further, it has been stated that the delay in passing the final orders is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the bonafide administrative reasons. It is also submitted that the acquittal of criminal case will in no way absolve the Petitioner from the rigour of proved charges in the course of the Departmental proceedings. 8. In the Counter Affidavit, it is specifically submitted that the Government is the appropriate authority to pass any order as far as the Petitioner is concerned. It is stated that the two delinquents, who are Inspectors of Police can be removed from service by an officer in the cadre of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Further, they being Inspectors of Police, Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are not applicable; therefore they were dealt with under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. As far as the Additional Affidavit of the Petitioner is concerned, there is no Counter Affidavit to that effect. 9. Heard the submissions of Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Edwin Prabhakar, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent. 10. Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously contended that the Petitioner was a controlling officer and he had done everything as per the law and the procedure contemplated. There was no lapses on the part of the Petitioner and at every stage of Investigation, he instructed his subordinates to proceed scrupulously following the procedure. This has been a finding of the Criminal Court also. Learned counsel also contended that the Petitioner had 35 years of clean service and received 200 medals and he was never accused of any lapses. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent has not applied his mind to various relevant aspects and vital details available in the form of Enquiry Report and the proceedings in the criminal case, which would give a different version to take a lenient view in respect of the Petitioner. 11. On the other hand, Mr. 11. On the other hand, Mr. A. Edwin Prabhakar, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Petitioners case has been carefully considered by the competent authority, the Respondent herein in accordance with relevant Rules and that the acquittal of criminal case has no direct bearing on the Departmental Disciplinary proceedings which was not based on same set of facts. The Respondent has properly considered this aspect by applying his mind and therefore, there is no scope for interference by this Court to go into the quantum of punishment awarded. 12. I have given careful consideration to the averments in the Petition and submissions made by learned counsel on either side. 13. Admittedly, the Petitioner as well as two Inspectors of Police were in service at Coimbatore. At that time, the Petitioner was Assistant Commissioner of Police and Anbalagan and Pitchai were the Inspectors of Police. There was a case of death of a girl and the matter was under investigation. Further Investigation ordered by the Sessions Court, Coimbatore was also carried out and finally, the criminal case had ended in acquittal. Simultaneously, the Departmental proceedings have been gone into by the competent authorities. .14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, the proceedings of the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, which is also included in the Additional Typed Set of papers, with regard to disposal of Appeal and modification of punishment by the Appellate Authority in respect of Inspector of Police – K.Anbalagan. In that order, the Appellate Authority has considered the case of the Inspector of Police, who was a co-delinquent in the same case. The Appellate Authority has found that the punishing authority viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the charges as proved and awarded the punishment of removal from service. Now, on appeal, the Appellate Authority noticed that the Enquiry Officer has failed to give credence to the explanation. From the report of Inspector General of Police / Commissioner of Police, the Appellate Authority held that the investigation of the delinquent is on the right lines and nothing to remark. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by modifying the original punishment of removal from service into that of "Reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years". The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by modifying the original punishment of removal from service into that of "Reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years". In the same line, the punishment of removal from service of another co-delinquent L. Pitchai, Inspector of Police was reduced from removal from service into reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years. 15. Now, the question arising for consideration in the light of above circumstances, which is a later development after disposal of the appeal by other co-delinquents resulting in modification of the punishment imposed by the competent Authority, is as to whether the same yardstick could be applied to the case of the Petitioner. 16. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Government is the competent authority to impose the punishment of removal from service. The co-delinquents preferred appeals and their punishment was modified. Since it was a later development, the Petitioner was not in a position to make any further step even to review the order. 17. 16. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Government is the competent authority to impose the punishment of removal from service. The co-delinquents preferred appeals and their punishment was modified. Since it was a later development, the Petitioner was not in a position to make any further step even to review the order. 17. Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules deals with Review, and it reads as follows:- "....20(1) A member of a State Service or a member of a Subordinate Service including a person who has ceased to be a member of such service in whose case the Government have passed original orders, shall be entitled to submit, within a period of two months from the date on which the order was communicated to him, a petition to the Government for review of the orders passed by them on any of the grounds specified below:- .(a) that the order was not passed by the competent authority; .(b) that a reasonable opportunity of defending himself was not given; .(c) that the punishment is excessive or unjust; .(d) discovery of new matter or evidence which the appellant alleges and proves to be satisfaction of the Government was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him before the order imposing the penalty was passed; .(e) evident error or omission such as failure to apply the Law of Limitation or an error of procedure apparent on the face of record; Provided that the Government may, in its discretion, condone any delay in submitting the petition for review within the said period of two months." A clear reading of the above provision reveals that Review can be preferred against the order of punishment only on certain conditions like discovery of new matter of evidence which the appellant alleges and proves to the satisfaction of the Government, which was not within his knowledge or error or omission such as failure to apply the law of Limitation. This condition was not available for the Petitioner as there was no such order of the co-delinquent officers at the relevant time. Now, it is in respect of a new matter or evidence which the Petitioner wants to satisfy the Government which was not within his knowledge at the time of order of punishment. This condition was not available for the Petitioner as there was no such order of the co-delinquent officers at the relevant time. Now, it is in respect of a new matter or evidence which the Petitioner wants to satisfy the Government which was not within his knowledge at the time of order of punishment. In this case, for three delinquent officers, there are two different appellate authorities viz., Additional Director General of Police and Government of Tamil Nadu. If the Appeal or Review or any remedy to this would have been before the same authority, the treatment could have been the same. But, in the instant case, because of the procedure followed by the Government and the other authorities in dealing with the matter involving three delinquents, independent authorities had decided the matter and taken a different view in respect of two other delinquent officers, which was not extended to the Petitioner. This situation has now made this Court to consider the case of the Petitioner by reviewing the matter as per the Rule stated supra. As there is a new matter of evidence, as per Rule 20(1) of the "said Rules", the Government can very well invoke the jurisdiction to review the order. Accordingly, it is necessary to direct the Government to take note of the developments in respect of two co-delinquent officers. The Government should consider and apply its mind to this aspect and review the orders. Now, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and all the contentions raised by either side are left open to be agitated. 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the discussion made above and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, feels that it is appropriate to direct the Petitioner herein to submit a review petition to the Government detailing the new circumstances and evidence, by enclosing all the documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On filing of the review as stated above by the Petitioner, the Government is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner, taking note of the relevant factors and the order of the Appellate Authority viz., Additional Director General of Police in respect of other two delinquents viz., Anbalagan and Pitchai and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. While entertaining the review application, the limitation period for preferring the review may be excluded taking note of pendency of this writ petition. 19. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.