Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, while in service as a police constable, was issued with a charge memo in P.R.95/85. After an enquiry was held into the charges, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the petitioner was removed from service by an order passed by the second respondent. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the order passed by the second respondent, removing the petitioner from service, had been confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a review petition, wherein the penalty of removal from service, imposed on the petitioner, was modified to that of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a mercy petition to the Government to reinstate the petitioner in service. By an order, in G.O.3D.No.120, Home (POL.VI), Department, dated 7. 96, the first respondent had passed an order, which is as follows: "ORDER: Thiru P.Chandran while working as Head Constable in Cheyyar P.S. Was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, North Arcot Ambedkar District in PR.95/85 for the following delinquencies: i) High handed action in having assaulted Vedhapuri, S/o.Kanna Gounder, Cheyyar over money transaction on 12. 86 at Elango Street, Venkatarayanpatty, Cheyyar Town. ii) having allowed his wife Tmt.Baggiam Chandran to enroll herself as a partner and to run a chit fund by name Sri Baggiam Financial Corporation at Door No.39, Elango Street, without obtaining permission of the competent authority and thereby violated rule 1(12) and 12(4) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Officers Conduct Rules, 1966". 2. His appeal petition to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range was rejected. He preferred a review petition to Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Madras and then the punishment was modified into that of compulsory retirement. His mercy petition to Government for reinstatement into service was also rejected. Meanwhile Thiru.Chandran Ex.P.C filed a O.A in Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal for disposal of his mercy petition , dated 13. 93, which he submitted again. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in its order, dated 29. 94, in O.A.No.4573 of 1994 directed the Government to consider his mercy petition and pass orders while passing orders the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal has observed that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the charge. 3. 93, which he submitted again. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in its order, dated 29. 94, in O.A.No.4573 of 1994 directed the Government to consider his mercy petition and pass orders while passing orders the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal has observed that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the charge. 3. The Government after careful consideration direct that Thiru.Chandran, Ex.P.C be reinstated in service and the punishment of compulsory retirement passed earlier by the Inspector General of Police, Madras be modified into that of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect." Aggrieved by the order passed by the Government, the petitioner has preferred an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5170 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.25049 of 2006. 3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that two charges had been framed against the petitioner under, Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, had conducted an oral enquiry and drew the minute, dated 1. 87, holding the charges in both the counts as proved. Agreeing with the finding, the Superintendent of Police, North Arcot Ambedkar District, the second respondent, awarded the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner, with effect from 24. 87. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore, was rejected in his proceedings in C.No.B1/Appeal.34/87, dated 87. On a review petition to the Inspector General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, the punishment of removal of service was modified to that of compulsory retirement from service in his proceedings in C.No.243769/PR.III(1)/87, dated 88. His further petition, dated 1. 90, was rejected by the Government in G.O.(2D) No.5, Home (Service.K), Department, dated 91. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.4573 of 1994, before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of compulsory retirement from service. By an order, dated 29. 94, the Tribunal had directed the Government to consider the petitioners representation, dated 13. 93, and to pass orders before 312. 94, taking into account the subsequent events relating to the criminal case filed against the petitioner. By an order, dated 29. 94, the Tribunal had directed the Government to consider the petitioners representation, dated 13. 93, and to pass orders before 312. 94, taking into account the subsequent events relating to the criminal case filed against the petitioner. The Tribunal had also observed that the penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the charges and therefore, directed the Government to consider the said aspect while passing orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Government had considered the representation of the petitioner, dated 13. 93, and ordered for his reinstatement in service with a modified penalty of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect in G.O.(3D).No.120, Home (POL.VI) Department, dated 96. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service and accordingly, he had reported for duty, on 196. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner. Further, it has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, made in G.O.(3D) No.120, Home (POL.VI) Department, dated 7. 96, has been issued without application of mind and without considering the directions issued by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 29. 94. No sufficient evidence was available for the respondents to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and for imposing the final punishment of penalty of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 96. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to hold that the impugned order, dated 7. 96, is devoid of merits or that it has been passed without application of mind. Nor has the petitioner shown that the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is excessive in nature. 6. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that there were sufficient reasons for the first respondent to come to its conclusions of imposing the penalty prescribed in its order, dated 96. Nor has the petitioner shown that the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is excessive in nature. 6. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that there were sufficient reasons for the first respondent to come to its conclusions of imposing the penalty prescribed in its order, dated 96. In fact the original order of punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner by the second respondent, with effect from 24. 87, and confirmed by the order, dated 10. 87, made in the appeal filed by the petitioner, had been modified to that of removal from service in the review petition by an order of the Inspector General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, dated 88. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 7. 96, in G.O. (3D), No.120 Home (POL.VI) Department, pursuant to the directions issued by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in its order, dated 29. 94, made in O.A.No.4573 of 1994. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7. 96, is arbitrary, illegal or void. Hence, there is no reason for this Court to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.