Judgment :- Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition, seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent herein passed in his proceedings P.R.No.F1/PR58/05, dated 15.09.2005 and C.P.O.2011/2005, C.No.F1/PR58/05, dated 10. 2005 imposing a punishment of rank reduction by one stage from the post of Head Constable to that of Grade I Police Constable for one year, on the petitioner and the proceedings of the second respondent herein passed in his C.No.F3/AP 22/2005 dated 210. 2005 and C.No.F3/AP22/2005, dated 211. 2005 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner and to quash the same and to direct the second respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. .3. The petitioner joined the police service as Grade II Police Constable in the year 1981 in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, 4th Battalion, Kovaipudur. He was transferred and posted in the Armed Reserve in the year 1993 and in the year 1995, he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable. As per the seniority, he was transferred as Grade I Police Constable from Armed Reserve to Taluk Police in the year 1998. He was also further promoted as Head Constable from November, 2000. During the relevant time, he was working so. He was placed under suspension on 7. 2005 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime, Coimbatore City, stating that he had misbehaved with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, Coimbatore City, while on traffic duty on 7. 2005 at about 10.30 a.m. at Old Fly Over, Avinashi Road during the visit of the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on that day. Following the suspension, a charge memo was served upon him calling for his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime, Central, Coimbatore City was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry and found that the charges were proved. He was given an opportunity to put forth his representation. Following the suspension, a charge memo was served upon him calling for his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime, Central, Coimbatore City was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry and found that the charges were proved. He was given an opportunity to put forth his representation. After receiving the explanation, the punishment of rank reduction for a period of one year from the post of Head Constable to Grade-I Police Constable was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal petition before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. The Commissioner of Police, in turn, has issued a show cause notice as to why the punishment of rank reduction for one year should not be enhanced. The petitioner filed his explanation. But, the Commissioner of Police has not only rejected the appeal, but also has enhanced the punishment as one for compulsory retirement. The petitioner has filed a review application and the same was to be considered by the Director General of Police, Chennai, but the review application has not yet been forwarded. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition before this court. .5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got 50 good service entries for his efficient work and he has put 24 years of unblemished service and he also got number of awards. The graven of the charge was that on 7. 2005 at about 10.30 hours, while he was performing bandobust duty, he was chatting with a woman constable by name Kalpana; that the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Intelligence Section, who noticed the same, directed him to perform his duty properly. At that time, there was not only dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, but also he has behaved in a disrespectful manner towards his higher-up, namely the Assistant Commissioner of Police. It is true, the Officer was examined as witness, but the Enquiry Officer has found that both the petitioner and the woman constable were guilty. Insofar as the woman constable was concerned, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was passed. While so far as the petitioner was concerned, the punishment awarded was rank reduction for a period of one year from Head Constable to Grade-I Police Constable. Insofar as the woman constable was concerned, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was passed. While so far as the petitioner was concerned, the punishment awarded was rank reduction for a period of one year from Head Constable to Grade-I Police Constable. Aggrieved the petitioner took it on appeal. The Commissioner of Police, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced, should have found that the department has not proved the case and should have set aside the same, instead the Commissioner of Police has served show cause notice, calling for explanation as to why not the punishment be enhanced. He has also enhanced the punishment to one of compulsory retirement. Neither facts nor circumstances warranted for such punishment, since it was excessive and unreasonable. The graven of the charge was that he has behaved in a disrespectful manner to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and there was dereliction of duty when he was on bandobust duty. Even assuming that the charges were proved, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, there was no occasion to enhance the punishment. While the lady constable, who was also chatting with the petitioner, though was found guilty, was imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect. Under these circumstances, it would be quite clear that there was discrimination in imposing punishment and that too when the appeal was preferred, there was enhancement of punishment of compulsory retirement. Even the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, enhancing the punishment, is perused, it would indicate that it is not a speaking order and without any basis whatsoever, the punishment has been enhanced, which under the circumstances, was uncalled for. It is true, a review petition was placed and it should reach the Director General of Police through the Commissioner of Police, but it has not been forwarded and is pending for a few years and under these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed and an order has got to be passed. .6. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents. .6. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents. According to him, it is a case where dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner was found; that he was chatting with the woman constable at the time when he was on bandobust duty during the visit of the Chief Minister; that he has also behaved in a disrespectful manner with the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner of Police has powers and jurisdiction to enhance the punishment, since the behaviour of the petitioner was one to be punished severely and he was also in police service and hence, there was justification for enhancement of punishment and that the writ petition has got to be dismissed. 7. The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. In the instant case, from the available materials, it could be seen that the petitioner, as the Head Constable of a particular Taluk Police Station, was on bandobust duty on 7. 2005 at about 10.30 hours. He was chatting with a woman constable. When the same was noticed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, it was questioned by him and the petitioner has behaved in a disrespectful manner. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, against whom the petitioner has behaved in a disrespectful manner, was also examined as a witness. Therefore, the court is of the considered opinion that the Enquiry Officer was perfectly correct in coming to a conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner and there is no doubt at all. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the woman constable, though was found guilty, was given punishment of only stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, but the petitioner was given more punishment of reduction in rank for one year from the post of Head Constable to Grade I Police Constable and thus, it would amount to discrimination. The Court is unable to countenance the said contention for the simple reason that both the petitioner, who was the Head Constable and the other woman constable were chatting, while attending bandobust duty. The punishment awarded to the woman constable was on the reason that she has not performed the bandobust duty, which was assigned to her at that time and she has chatted with the petitioner herein. The punishment awarded to the woman constable was on the reason that she has not performed the bandobust duty, which was assigned to her at that time and she has chatted with the petitioner herein. The court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be found to be discriminatory. First of all, if the woman constable was not performed duty properly, it is for the petitioner, who was the Head Constable and above in rank to that of the woman constable, to call her and to order her to perform her duty properly, but he himself has chatted with her in a public place and that too while performing bandobust duty. Apart from that, according to the department, it was he who behaved in a disrespectful manner with the Assistant Commissioner of Police and not the woman constable. Under these circumstances, the punishment awarded to the petitioner, after enquiry, in no way could be found to be discriminatory. In the opinion of the court, the punishment awarded at that time, namely reduction in rank, cannot be found discriminatory. 9. The petitioner, who was awarded punishment of rank reduction for a period of one year from the post of Head Constable to Grade I constable, aggrieved over the same, took it on appeal, but the Commissioner of Police has issued a notice on him as to why not punishment be enhanced and he has also imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. The court, after considering the materials available, is of the considered opinion that the punishment of compulsory retirement for the allegations made, was excessive. Under these circumstances, the punishment of compulsory retirement has got to be set aside. But, at the same time, enhancement of punishment should have been made to some extent. In the opinion of the court, the punishment of rank reduction from the post of Head Constable to Grade I Police Constable could be enhanced till this time, namely 2007. 10. Hence, the punishment awarded by the Commissioner of Police as one for compulsory retirement is modified as one for reduction in rank of the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to Grade-I Police Constable till the period of 2007 and further, necessary directions are issued to the respondents for reinstatement of the petitioner into service and his seniority also has got to be taken into account. Accordingly, directions are issued and the writ petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.