Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is working as a Police Constable Grade-I, in the City Crime Records Bureau, Coimbatore City. The petitioner had filed the original application in O.A.No.5218 of 1996, before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order, dated 27. 95, passed by the third respondent, awarding the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for two years, with cumulative effect. The said order had been confirmed by the Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, by his order, dated 9. 95. 3. While he was working as a Grade-I Police Constable, the petitioner and his colleague Jeyaprakash, Head Constable, were on bandobust duty, on 8. 92. Whileso, they found an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN-37-7788, parked in front of a wine shop by name ‘Devi Wines at 2nd Street, Gandhipuram. The petitioner and his colleague noticed three persons, namely, Elangovan, Eswaran and Ramesh standing in front of the car and causing nuisance, under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, they were asked to come to B-3 Police Station, where cases were registered against them in Crime Nos.2616, 2617 and 2618 of 1992, under Section 75 of Madras City Police Act, and they were later released on bail. 4. Later, the petitioner was shocked to know that on 211. 92 certain charges were levelled against him, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, for beating Elangovan in B-3 Police Station, on 8. 92, and for demanding and accepting bribe. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order, dated 29. 92, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. At that stage, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.5398 and 5816 of 1992. By an order, dated 14. 93, the Tribunal had quashed the order of suspension, as it was unwarranted and it had also set aside the charge memo on the ground that the charges were vague and non specific and that it was issued by an incompetent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service. By an order, dated 14. 93, the Tribunal had quashed the order of suspension, as it was unwarranted and it had also set aside the charge memo on the ground that the charges were vague and non specific and that it was issued by an incompetent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service. However, with regard to the disciplinary proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Coimbatore, the third respondent herein, had framed the charges against the petitioner, on 94. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and order, Coimbatore, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry, based on the said charge memo, dated 94. The oral enquiry was conducted on various dates thereafter. There were 17 documents filed on behalf of the department and six persons were examined as witnesses. Four persons were examined as witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had held that all the three charges were proved. However, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic, Coimbatore City, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he had held that though Charge No.1 was proved, Charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved. Based on such findings, the disciplinary authority, who is the third respondent herein, had awarded the punishment of reduction in scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, by the order, dated 27. 95. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, on 28. 95. The second respondent had rejected the appeal, on 9. 95. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a memorial to the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamilnadu, the first respondent herein and it was kept pending. As no further orders were passed, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5218 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28161 of 2006. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that on the complaint preferred by Elangovan, an accused in B-3 Kattur Police Station in Crime No.2612/92, under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act, on 8. 5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that on the complaint preferred by Elangovan, an accused in B-3 Kattur Police Station in Crime No.2612/92, under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act, on 8. 92, and based on the subsequent preliminary enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (East), dated 30.8.92, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order, dated 29. 92. A charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) rules, was framed and served on the petitioner, on 292. However, the order of suspension and the charge memo were revoked based on the orders passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, on 193. As per the directions of the Tribunal, fresh action was initiated against the petitioner, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in P.R.97/94. After an oral enquiry, the third respondent herein had awarded the petitioner, the punishment of reduction in scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, by an order, dated 27. 95. The appeal had been preferred by the petitioner to the second respondent and it was rejected on 9. 95. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a review petition, dated 29. 95, to the first respondent. The said review petition had been rejected by a proceedings, dated 196. .6. It has been further stated that the allegation of the petitioner that there were no materials to hold the petitioner guilty of Charge No.1, is not correct. For the occurrence that had taken place inside the police station, it is not desirable to expect corroborative evidence from independent witnesses. If the prosecution witnesses, namely, Elangovan, Easwaran and Ramesh can be termed as interested persons, then the defence witnesses could also be termed as interested witnesses, who had deposed in favour of the petitioner. As seen from the statements of the prosecution witnesses 1 to 3, it is very clear that the petitioner had slapped Elangovan at the entrance of B-3 Kattur Police Station. Therefore, it is not possible for the defence witnesses, who were seated inside the police station to witness the occurrence. The time at which the occurrence had taken place, should also be taken into account. Therefore, it is not possible for the defence witnesses, who were seated inside the police station to witness the occurrence. The time at which the occurrence had taken place, should also be taken into account. It was at 2.30 a.m, on 8. 92. At such an odd hour, it is not possible to expect independent witnesses to be present at the place of occurrence. Hence, the finding of the third respondent holding the petitioner guilty of Charge No.1 is just and correct. Further, there is no violation of the orders passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.5398 and 5816 of 1992. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed as unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned orders passed by the second and third respondents are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since it was found by the disciplinary authority that all the other charges except Charge No.1 were not proved, the punishment imposed on the petitioner should be commensurate with Charge No.1, levelled against the petitioner. There were no materials to hold the petitioner guilty of Charge No.1, as it relates to an alleged incident of slapping of the accused Elangovan by the petitioner. If Charge Nos.2 and 3 were held as not proved, since there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the allegations made by the accused against the petitioner, the same reasons should have been used to hold that Charge No.1 was also not proved. 8. It has also been found that neither the accused Elangovan nor the other two accused persons, namely, Easwaran and Ramesh, had lodged any complaint about the incident of slapping to the higher authorities. Further, while the accused persons were under the influence of alcohol, causing nuisance in public, they were taken to B-3 Police Station only on the instructions of Jeyaprakash and the petitioner was not involved, in any manner, in the alleged incident. Further, the petitioner had an unblemished record of service and he is a recipient of more than 10 rewards in appreciation of his sincere work. He was also awarded the Chief Ministers medal during the year 1986. Further, the petitioner had an unblemished record of service and he is a recipient of more than 10 rewards in appreciation of his sincere work. He was also awarded the Chief Ministers medal during the year 1986. As such, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the impugned orders of the second and third respondents are causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner, as it has cast a stigma on the conduct of the petitioner. .9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had contended that the impugned orders passed by the second and third respondents, imposing the punishment of reduction in scale of pay by two stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, is in accordance with law and it is not excessive in nature as it is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, committed by him. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner are unsustainable as they are devoid of merits. 10. On analyzing the averments made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and on considering the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing on either side, and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that three charges were levelled against the petitioner, on 211. 92, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. .11. The first charge is that the petitioner had committed a highly reprehensible conduct in beating Elangovan, an accused concerned in Crime No.2616 of 1992 in B-3 Police Station, Kattur, under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act, inside the police station, on 8. 92, at 2.30 hours, misusing his official power. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were relating to grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner in demanding and accepting bribe from the accused persons, namely, Elangovan, Eswaran and Ramesh for releasing them on bail, on 8. 92. However, after the said charge memo had been quashed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, by its order, dated 14. 93, as it had been issued by an incompetent authority, the third respondent herein had framed the charges against the petitioner, on 94. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry, with regard to the charge memo, dated 94. 93, as it had been issued by an incompetent authority, the third respondent herein had framed the charges against the petitioner, on 94. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry, with regard to the charge memo, dated 94. An oral enquiry had been conducted and the Enquiry Officer had found that all the three charges have been proved. However, the Disciplinary authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of police, Crime and Traffic, Coimbatore City, had disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, with regard to Charge Nos.2 and 3 and he had held that Charge No.1 was proved and that the other two charges have not been proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority, the third respondent herein, had awarded the punishment of reduction in scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, by his order, dated 27. 95. The appeal preferred by the petitioner, on 28. 95, had been rejected by the second respondent by his order, dated 9. 95. Thereafter, the review petition filed by the petitioner had also been rejected by the first respondent, Additional Director General of Police, Chennai, by his proceedings, dated 196. 12. It is found that the disciplinary authority, namely, the third respondent herein, had awarded the punishment of reduction in scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, with cumulative effect, on the petitioner, by his order, dated 27. 95. The third respondent had awarded the said punishment on the petitioner, holding that the first charge had been proved and that Charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved. The third respondent has come to the conclusion that Charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved, based on the fact that they were no independent witnesses, except for the statements of the accused, for substantiating the charges levelled against the petitioner. Similarly, for the incident of slapping of Elangovan that is alleged to have taken place, on 8. 92, no independent witnesses were available to corroborate the charge against the petitioner. 13. It is not in dispute that the accused persons had not made any complaint to the higher authorities, with regard to the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 8. 92. 92, no independent witnesses were available to corroborate the charge against the petitioner. 13. It is not in dispute that the accused persons had not made any complaint to the higher authorities, with regard to the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 8. 92. There is no documentary evidence available, like a medical certificate, for the respondents to come to the conclusion that the incident of slapping of Elangovan, who is an accused in Crime No.2616 of 1992, could have taken place at the entrance of B-3, Kattur Police Station. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the alleged incident had taken place, on 8. 92, to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. Though it may be correct to state that in normal circumstances no independent witness would be available at the odd hour when the incident is alleged to have taken place, one has to consider the various factors surrounding the incident before arriving at the conclusions. 14. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to hold that the impugned orders are sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned order of the 3rd respondent, dated 27. 95, and the 2nd respondent, dated 9. 95, are set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.