Judgment :- The petitioner, who was a Sub Inspector of Police was charged under rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules in P.R.17/86, for reprehensible conduct of detaining one Sekar, S/o Manniah Valikiramanickam, at Pallathur Police Station, unauthorisedly from 110. 1989 to 011. 1989. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppatthur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The department examined five prosecution witnesses and marked seven documents. Based on the statement of former Assistant Superintendent of Police and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the enquiry under Police Standing Order 145, the Enquiry Officer, viz., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppatthur, gave a report holding the charge as proved. The Disciplinary Authority, viz., Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, third respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded a penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner dated 212. 1991 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chennai, second respondent was rejected and pending disposal of the review petition dated 15.02.1993 filed before the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai, first respondent, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition. 2. Assailing the above said orders, the petitioner has submitted that P.W.1, alleged victim had categorically denied that he was detained, before the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the respondents ought not to have relied on the statement of the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the report of the Revenue Officer. The said finding arrived at by the enquiry officer based on the statement obtained behind the back of the petitioner is erroneous. He further submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary authority are based on mere assumption of facts. According to him, when the alleged defence himself had deposed that he was not detained and beaten, the same ought to have been accepted by the Enquiry Officer and consequently, the whole disciplinary proceedings, initiated on the basis of statement given by P.W.1 is vitiated and consequently the punishment awarded to the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that on 110. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that on 110. 1989, the petitioner brought one person, viz., Sekar S/o Manniah Valikiramanickam to Pallathur Police Station for interrogation in connection with Cr.No.185/89 u/s 457, 380 IPC and detained him in the Police Station, illegally. On 011. 1989, when the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi visited the station at 11.15 hrs., the Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, informed him that there was nobody in the lockup. Again, on the same day when the Assistant Superintendent of Police, visited the police station by surprise, he found that one Sekar was kept inside the lockup. On enquiry, both the Station sentry PC 1075 and the station Writer Gr-I PC 323 have stated that the said Sekar was detained by the Sub Inspector of Police (Law & Order) and Crime, in connection with Pallathur Police Station Crime No.184/89 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. When the Assistant Superintendent of Police enquired the detenu, he had stated that earlier, during the first visit on the same day, at 11.15 hrs., the detenu was kept in bathroom of the Police Station. The Assistant Superintendent of Police recorded the statement of the detenu and prima facie found that in spite of the request made by the detenus brother, the detenu had been illegally kept in the lockup for more than 14 days, that he was beaten and not given proper food also. Based on his report, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Police Standing Order 145 and thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 4. The respondents have further submitted that out of five witnesses examined, three of them did not support the allegations levelled in the charge memo. However, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, who was examined as P.W.5 and one Thiru Jesu, P.W.4 Constable, who had accompanied the said Assistant Superintendent of Police had given statements to the effect that the detenu was locked up in the Police Station, beaten and harassed. The respondents have further submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, giving all opportunities to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents have further submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, giving all opportunities to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that as there was sufficient and acceptable evidence, the Enquiry Officer had recorded a specific finding that the charges as proved. The disciplinary authority, after careful consideration of the report, further representation of the petitioner and after taking a lenient view, has imposed a lesser penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The respondents have further submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner commensurate with the charges and therefore, there is no need to interfere the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when P.W.1 has turned hostile in the oral enquiry and deposed that he was not locked up and beaten, the finding of the Enquiry officer on the basis of the statements given by P.W.5 Assistant Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi, and P.W.4 Thiru Jesu, Police Constable, is erroneous and therefore, the above proceedings are vitiated. 7. A reading of the enquiry report reveals that the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Karaikudi, viz., P.W.5 and Police Constable, Thiru Jesu, who was examined as P.W.4 have categorically stated that one Thiru Sekar was in the lockup at the time of surprise inspection conducted on 011. 1990 by the Assistant Superintendent of Police. They have also deposed that statements were recorded from the detenu and other police constables in the station. The Enquiry Officer, has rendered a specific finding that P.W.5 Assistant Superintendent Police, Karaikudi, has personally checked the Police Station on 011. 1990 at 11.15hrs. and at 16.15 hrs. and found the victim in the lockup, in connection with Cr.No.185/89 u/s 457 and 380 I.P.C. Considering the mitigating factor that P.W.1 detenu, had turned hostile, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and awarded the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 8. and found the victim in the lockup, in connection with Cr.No.185/89 u/s 457 and 380 I.P.C. Considering the mitigating factor that P.W.1 detenu, had turned hostile, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and awarded the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 8. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch v. Maharaj Singh reported in ( 2003(9) SCC 191 ) has clearly held that it is not for the High Court to sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the entire evidence and render a different finding. No mala fide has been attributed against the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the police constable whose evidence is not shattered during cross examination. Merely because the key witness has turned hostile that will not absolve the petitioner of his illegal act of detention. Courts have consistently held that it is for the Court to test the order on the basis of sufficiency or adequacy of evidence. It is well settled that in departmental proceedings, the test is preponderance of probability and not culpability, which requires strict proof of evidence. Why should an Assistant Superintendent of Police, a police officer of higher rank should give a false report of illegal detention. The Revenue Divisional Officer who had conducted the proceedings under Police Standing Order 145 has also given a preliminary fact finding report. Therefore, in these circumstances the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be termed as perverse, warranting any interference. The order passed by the appellate authority does not require any interference. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.