Judgment :- 1. Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a Police constable. During the year 1986-1987, while the petitioner was working as Grade II Police Constable attached to K6 T.P. Chattram Police Station, on 01.01.1987, he was on patrol duty along with another police constable by name V. Ethiraj (PC269). While they were on duty, at about 07.30 p.m. they found two persons moving in suspicious circumstances, one by name Babu S/o.Vembuli residing at No.62, Kuggi Naicker Street, Anna Nagar, Kilpauk Garden, Chennai and another by name Venkatesan S/o Ekambaram. According to Babu, they were only attending to natures call. On suspicion, the petitioner and Mr. Ethiraj attempted to intercept them, but Mr. Venkatesan vanished from the scene of occurrence and Babu was caught hold. It is alleged that in that process, Babu sustained injuries one on his right eye and the other on a non vital part of the body. The allegation is that Babu was attacked by the petitioner with a cane. Babu was immediately taken to the Police station by the petitioner and Ethiraj from where he was referred to the hospital for treatment. Since Babus right eye was injured seriously, it was removed surgically. Subsequently, his brother by name Gangadharan committed suicide unable to bear the mental stress. 3. In respect of the above occurrence, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner and to Ethiraj by the second respondent. The said charge memorandum contains two charges. The first charge relates to the alleged attack made by the petitioner on Babu causing injury to his right eye. The second charge relates to his responsibility for the death of Gangadharan. The petitioners contention was that he did not cause any injury on Babu and he was not responsible for the death of Gangadharan. An enquiry was held into the above charges by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Anna Nagar who was appointed as enquiry officer. During enquiry Babu was examined as P.W.1 and one Athimoolam, who is yet another brother of Babu, was examined as P.W.2. Few more witnesses were also examined. The statement of Babu given to the Police during investigation was exhibited as Ex.P1. Some more documents were also marked. During enquiry Babu was examined as P.W.1 and one Athimoolam, who is yet another brother of Babu, was examined as P.W.2. Few more witnesses were also examined. The statement of Babu given to the Police during investigation was exhibited as Ex.P1. Some more documents were also marked. On completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 30.12.2002 holding that both the charges proved. 4. Based on the said report and accepting the same, the second respondent by his proceeding dated 13.01.2003 imposed a punishment of pay reduction for three stages for three years with cumulative effect from the date of the order. Subsequent to the said order, on realising that there were certain procedural lapses committed by him before passing the said order such as non supply of copy of the enquiry officers report etc., the second respondent suo motu recalled the said order. 5. Thereafter, the second respondent supplied a copy of the enquiry officers report and called for further explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner duly submitted his further explanation. Rejecting the said explanation, the second respondent by his proceedings in Tha.Ko.No.84/Tha.Pi.2(2)/90 Rule(b) dated 12.06.2003 passed the final order thereby imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. 6. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2346 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal waived appeal and the revisional remedy by the petitioner and entertained the original application. It appears that an order of stay of the impugned order of dismissal was also passed by the Tribunal on 10.07.2003. Curiously, the said order was not complied with and the petitioner was not reinstated. Consequent on the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.20667 of 2005 and that is how this writ petition is now before this Court for disposal. 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that similar charge memo was issued to the other constable namely Mr.Ethiraj alleging that it was he who was responsible for injuries caused on Babu and also responsible for the death of his brother. Based on the enquiry officers report against him, the second respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. 8. Based on the enquiry officers report against him, the second respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. 8. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.346 of 2008 seeking permission to raise additional grounds and the same was also allowed by this Court by an order dated 09.07.2008. 9. Heard Mr. M.S. Soundararajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. V. Arun, the learned Additional Government Pleader. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not responsible for the injuries caused on Babu and it was only Mr. Ethiraj. To find favour with this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decree and judgment of the Sub Court in O.S.No.8631 of 1990. The said suit was filed by Babu against the Government, Ethiraj and the petitioner for compensation for the loss sustained by him. The stand of Babu, according to his pleadings in the suit, is that it was only Mr. Ethiraj who attacked him and caused injuries on him. There was no allegation in the plaint that the petitioner caused the injury. The suit was hotly contested by the parties. Finally the City Civil Court granted decree in favour of Babu holding that injury was caused only by Ethiraj. The learned counsel took me through the said judgment and urged that this Court should take judicial notice of the said judgment and hold that the petitioner is not responsible for the injuries. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that since the said judgment was not produced before the enquiry officer, the same cannot be made use of by any party in this writ petition. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In my considered opinion, there can be no legal impediment for this Court to take judicial notice of the judgment of the civil Court. A perusal of the judgment clearly shows that it was the specific stand of Babu that it was only Mr. Ethiraj who caused the injury on him and not this petitioner. When that plea has been accepted and final adjudication has been made by the City Civil Court, I am of the view the same should be preferred to the report of the enquiry officer. Ethiraj who caused the injury on him and not this petitioner. When that plea has been accepted and final adjudication has been made by the City Civil Court, I am of the view the same should be preferred to the report of the enquiry officer. Though there are conflicting findings one by the Court and other by the administrative authority, this Court is bound to rely on the findings of the Court. Therefore, based on the judgment of City Civil Court, I have to necessarily hold that the report of the enquiry officer is not correct. It cannot be safely held that the petitioner caused injuries on Babu. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the charges for the reason that he also had connived or acted in concert with Ethiraj in the occurrence which resulted in injury on Babu. In this background, when Ethiraj has been visited with the punishment of stoppage of increment by three stages for three years with cumulative effect, the punishment on the petitioner cannot be anything more than that. In my view, the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, if the punishment imposed on Mr. Ethiraj is taken into account. Thus, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be set aside and instead an appropriate lesser punishment is liable to be imposed. In my considered view, punishment of stoppage of increment by three stages for three years with cumulative effect will meet the ends of justice. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the second respondent imposing punishment of dismissal from service is set aside and instead, there shall be a punishment of stoppage of increment by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. The second respondent is directed to issue a consequential order reinstating the petitioner in service forthwith.