Judgment : K. K. SASIDHARAN, J. 1. These two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 5.5.2004 in O.A. Nos. 1267 and 1268 of 2004 whereby the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original applications preferred by the petitioners challenging the order of dismissal dated 1.4.2003 on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chennai as confirmed by orders dated 24.5.2003 and 20.2.2004 on the file of Joint Commissioner of Police and Director General of Police respectively. 2. The petitioners were working as Police Constables attached to D-9 Seerani Arangam Police Station and while so they were served with a charge memo to the effect that on 20.11.2001 they demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from one Mrs. Prabha and Captain Sidhu and threatened that in case they failed to pay the said amount, they would be taken to the Police Station and accordingly they have collected a sum of Rs. 3,500/-and compelled them to proceed to Hongkong Bank located at Parrys and made Cap. Sidhu to withdraw a sum of Rs. 6,500/- from A.T.M. and after collecting a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in total, they permitted the said Prabha and Cap. Sidhu to depart from the said place. 3. The petitioners submitted their explanation to the charge memos and subsequently departmental enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Adyar Range and on such enquiry, the, enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly a report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, being the disciplinary authority and the said report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and subsequently the petitioners were dismissed from service. 4. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioners before the First Appellate Authority and the appeal was also rejected confirming the order of punishment. The orders of dismissal, as confirmed by the Appellate order were challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on consideration of the matter in extenso concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and accordingly the original applications were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful applicants have preferred the present two writ petitions. 5. We have heard Thiru C. Vijayakumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Thiru M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful applicants have preferred the present two writ petitions. 5. We have heard Thiru C. Vijayakumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Thiru M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners by relying on certain contradictions in the evidence of Mrs. Prabha and Cap. Sidhu, who were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 in the enquiry, contended that the case as projected by P.Ws.1 and 2 appears to be false inasmuch as there was sufficient time between the initial transaction whereby a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was collected by the petitioners and the subsequent withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 6,500/-from the Hongkong Bank at Parrys. The learned senior counsel further contended that the very fact that the witnesses Prabha and Cap. Sidhu did not make any complaint to the concerned police station for registering a case, clearly shows that the whole episode is a make-belief affair and the petitioners were unnecessarily proceeded against in the departmental enquiry. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and we have also perused the available materials on record. 8. Even though in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Court is not expected to consider the matter, as an appellate authority, still we have considered the evidence of Cap. Sidhu as well as Mrs. Prabha as tendered before the Enquiry Officer. It was their evidence that the petitioners forcibly collected the amount of Rs. 3,500/-from them and they were also asked to pay the balance sum of Rs. 6,500/-after withdrawal of the same from the A.T.M. of Hongkong Bank at Parrys and at a later point of time they went to the Commissioners office and as per the direction of the Police Commissioner, they have gone to Mylapore Police Station and preferred the complaint. During the course of enquiry it was also brought out that the petitioners have returned the amount of Rs. 10,000/-to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Mylapore. On a proper appreciation of the entire materials the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubt. During the course of enquiry it was also brought out that the petitioners have returned the amount of Rs. 10,000/-to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Mylapore. On a proper appreciation of the entire materials the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and having found that the petitioners being the law enforcing authority themselves took law into their hands, imposed the punishment of removal from service, which was confirmed in appeal. 9. The petitioners are policemen and their duty is to protect the life and property of the citizen. Police force had to be a disciplined force and members of the police force are expected to behave in a disciplined and responsible manner. As observed by the Apex Court in (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, increasing number of underworld act, armed gangs and criminals. Society expects much from the police force. Misdeeds of a microscopic minority in the police had the effect of tarnishing the image of the entire police force. 10. The police force is a disciplined one. The men belonging to the force are supposed to have knowledge of all requirements of law and order and that is why they are considered to be persons in charge of maintaining law and order in the society. Even a constable belonging to that force is covered by this concept and he shall discharge his duties remaining faithful to the law first. He cannot be a party to any act causing transgression of the frontiers of law and if such an event were to happen it can only mean something is wrong in the society. To set it right, again this law enforcement authority will have to be totally revamped. Therefore persons belonging to such force besides being aware of requirement of law and order also must be persons capable of enforcing the right and corresponding duties. The event which is admitted to have happened in this case shows that all these have been forgotten and slur has been cast in the working of the system. Therefore persons belonging to such force besides being aware of requirement of law and order also must be persons capable of enforcing the right and corresponding duties. The event which is admitted to have happened in this case shows that all these have been forgotten and slur has been cast in the working of the system. It shall have to be avoided to continue to infuse confidence in the minds of the members of the public that purity of this force is maintained. 11. Since the complainant in the present case happens to be a Pilot in the Indian Army, he was able to act quickly. Police machinery also acted swiftly and as a result, departmental action was taken against the petitioners, which ultimately culminated in their dismissal from service. At times, victims would be innocent law abiding citizens having no social connections and it would be very difficult for them to raise their fingers against the delinquent for fear of retaliation. 12. In the case on hand there was no necessity for P.W.1 and P.W.2 to falsely implicate the petitioners. In case the complainant was involved in any cognizable offence the petitioners could have proceeded against them under the provisions of Indian Penal code or any other appropriate legislation. But no such action was taken by the petitioners. They tried to make use of the opportunity to extract money under threat of taking P.W.1 and P.W.2 to police station as well as by intimidating that the matter would be reported to the press. Therefore we have no doubt that the behaviour of the petitioners had to be considered as gross and serious misconduct which attracts maximum punishment under the relevant service rules. 13. The Disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority considered the nature of proceedings as well as the evidence collected by the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry and after careful consideration of the entire matter found that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved and therefore their conduct deserves to be condemned and ultimately the petitioners were awarded the maximum punishment of dismissal from service. The said finding being purely on the basis of evidence, we do not find any reason to disagree with those findings of the enquiry officer as accepted by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority and which ultimately found favoured with the State Administrative Tribunal. 14. The said finding being purely on the basis of evidence, we do not find any reason to disagree with those findings of the enquiry officer as accepted by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority and which ultimately found favoured with the State Administrative Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the punishment awarded is disproportionate warranting interference by this Court. We do not agree with the said submission. 15. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to look into the correctness of the choice made by the disciplinary authority and it issible for this Court to substitute its decision in the place of the decision taken by the disciplinary authority. 16. The power of judicial review is very limited in departmental proceedings. As held by the Apex Court in AIR 2006 SC 3290 : 2006 (9) SCALE 121 :2006-III-LLJ-964, the gravity of misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of misconduct. Considering the fact that the misconduct is committed by none other than the members of police force entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order and ensuring safety and security to the people as well as the nature and gravity of the charges levelled, we are of the opinion that the quantum of punishment awarded was not disproportionate of the charges framed against the petitioners. 17. In Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF (2006) 2 SCC 541 , the Apex Court considered the scope of judicial review in matters relating to departmental proceedings and held thus: “ 8. The Courts should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. commonly known as Wednesburycase the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision. (See V. Ramana v. A. P. SRTC )” 18. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision. (See V. Ramana v. A. P. SRTC )” 18. Therefore we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings given by the State Administrative Tribunal. In fact the Tribunal considered the entire evidence extensively and came to a categorical conclusion that the charges against the petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 19. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners finally submitted that the petitioners may be given liberty to approach the first respondent with a representation to consider their case sympathetically. We make it clear that dismissal of the present writ petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioners giving representation to the first respondent and consideration of such representation by the first respondent. However the same may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and it is open to the first respondent to consider the representation on its own merits and as per law. 20. It would be appropriate to quote the following observation of the Apex Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India 2006 (9) SCALE 444 . “ 12. The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the Rule of Law. The supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the Rule of Law becomes a casualty, the guilty Police Officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.” 21. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observation. No costs.