Judgment :- K. Kannan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Summary of facts: 2. The petitioner, who was a police constable in the Armed Reserve had been dismissed from service for gross misconduct, after enquiry by the disciplinary authority. The order was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal, but did not succeed. He is before us challenging the order dated 13. 2002 in O.A.No.3907 of 1991 as affirmed in review application by order dated 20.6.2003 in R.A.No.59 of 2002. 3. The case has had a long chequered career. The charge against the petitioner was that in a raid by a Prohibition Enforcement Wing conducted on 28. 1981 between 10.45 a.m and 4 p.m, the petitioner had posed himself as a member of the police party along with others and travelled to one Paiyur Village. He was alleged to have demanded Rs.500/- from one Govindasamy and obtained Rs.100/-as illegal gratification. Yet another person Navaneetha Krishnan from whom also a similar illegal gratification had been obtained was made the other victim of his illegal demand. As a part of the same transaction, another person Murugaiah, S/o Sundara Nadar as also made to succumb to the demand of illegal gratification. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet that he was never present with the other members of the police party and that he was not at all involved in the incident. The enquiry officer who conducted enquiry gave his finding after recording evidence of witnesses that even in the complaint lodged by a victim for illegal gratification, the petitioners name was specifically referred to as having participated in the illegal demand. The enquiry officer found as follows: "From the Statements of the witnesses 1 to 7 and 13 it is clear that an unauthorised raid was conducted in the villages of Valivalam PS limits and the affected persons have come forward with the complaint. It is clear that the delinquent has travelled in the taxi and he has been identified by more than one person and there is no motive for them to implicate this delinquent. Though there is no direct evidence that this delinquent received any money there is ample evidence that he has taken part in the unauthorised raid along with some policemen. Though there is no direct evidence that this delinquent received any money there is ample evidence that he has taken part in the unauthorised raid along with some policemen. Hence I hold that the charge against the delinquent is proved beyond all reasonable doubts." The enquiry officers findings were affirmed and the punishment of dismissal was handed down by the Superintendent of Police. An appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, viz. the third respondent confirmed the findings and punishment, specifically holding that the evidence of Taxi driver regarding the presence of the petitioner along with other members of the police party lent sufficient credibility to the charge against him and drove home the guilt. He also took note of the fact that there was no motive for the witnesses to give evidence against the petitioner. He had moved a petition for review before the Inspector General of Police viz., the second respondent and it was also dismissed. An order was issued in G.O.Ms.No.1124 dated 5. 1985 dismissing the petitioner on the ground that the unauthorised raid posing as a Prohibition Enforcement Wing staff demanding bribe could not be tolerated in the disciplined force and therefore his petition for reviewing the decision for the other police authorities was liable to be rejected. Tribunals decision, back and forth: 4. The petitioner tasted success in his challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, when by its order dated 4. 1993 set aside the order of dismissal on re-appreciation of evidence tendered before the enquiry officer. It held that there were discrepancies with regard to evidence of eye witness P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.5 regarding the presence of the petitioner at the place of the incident. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court and it was disposed off in Civil Appeal No.6427 of 1995 by its order dated 29. 1995 holding that the order of the Administrative Tribunal was liable to be set aside and a direction given to the effect that the case should be restored to its file and disposed of afresh after looking into the relevant records in accordance with law. The Honble Supreme Court referred to the fact that there could not be re-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal as though it was the Court of appeal. The Honble Supreme Court referred to the fact that there could not be re-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal as though it was the Court of appeal. In the second round, when the matter went back before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal passed an order on 13. 2002 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. In so doing, the Tribunal had dealt with the vital contentions of the case regarding whether the petitioner was present along with the Prohibition Enforcement Staff of the police party and whether the enquiry officer had properly discussed the evidence available and came to the conclusion on a correct reasoning that the charges had been proved. The Tribunal adverted to the position of law with particular reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in a decision in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs.Union of India reported in 1995(6) SCC 749 wherein it has been held that "When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the Tribunal is devoid of power to reappraise the evidence and could come to its own conclusion on the proved charge". Staying within the legal parameters and finding that the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority had been properly made on the basis of thorough examination of facts, held, that there was no scope for interference and accordingly dismissed the petition. A further application made by the petitioner for reviewing the said decision in R.A.NO.59 of 2002 met with the same fate on 20.6.2003. It is this order which confirms and merges with the earlier order made in Original application that is challenged before us. Submission on behalf of the delinquent: 5. Mr. P. Jayaraman, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued before us that two other police constables alleged to have been involved in the same incident viz. P.Cs.200 and 995 had been let off without any punishment on account of the fact that the witnesses could not identify their presence. He drew our attention to the fact that no one had come forward to give any statement against the said PCs.200 and 995 and he had referred to the Inspectors report that perhaps "they had tampered with the witnesses not to give evidence against them". He drew our attention to the fact that no one had come forward to give any statement against the said PCs.200 and 995 and he had referred to the Inspectors report that perhaps "they had tampered with the witnesses not to give evidence against them". This fact, according to the petitioner, was vital to show that the disciplinary authority was showing invidious distinction between the persons involved in the same incident by exculpating some of the persons charged with the offence and awarding the punishment to some of them. Finding on presence of the delinquent at the scene of occurrence: 6. We do not find any merit in such a contention because the enquiry officer had referred to a special report that had been sent to the Superintendent of Police by the Inspector of Police who had difficulties in securing the evidence against two persons viz. PCs.200 and 995 and had given his own assumption that witnesses could have been tampered. The enquiry officer had himself no evidence before him for alleged tampering of the witnesses by the said two persons. On the other hand, the enquiry officer clearly found the petitioners involvement in the offence and the direct evidence on his participation along with others. It was in that context, he referred to the fact that even in the complaint originally lodged, the petitioners name was cited as one among others whose presence had been noted and squarely implicated him as having made the illegal demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended before us that even if he had been present, money had been demanded actually by two other policemen and that there was no evidence that the petitioner actually demanded and received the money. Such a contention does not help him at all because if his presence at the place is proved, but the money was not paid to each one of the persons in the police party, it does not make the charge any the less flimsy. Admittedly the petitioner belonged to the Armed Reserve and he had no reason to be associated along with Prohibition Enforcement staff. Admittedly the petitioner belonged to the Armed Reserve and he had no reason to be associated along with Prohibition Enforcement staff. If he had been there at the time along with them and was seen demanding illegal gratification from some persons and there was evidence that the illegal gratification was also collected, it is irrelevant that the money was not actually tendered to him, but to the other police personnel who were present there. The evidence was found to be sufficiently strong to implicate the guilt of the petitioner. .7. It is in this context, the counsel for the respondent department drew our attention to the evidence of PW3, Govindasmy who had specifically implicated the petitioner as having demanded Rs.500/- from him and that he also threatened that he would be beaten and booked in a false case, if the money was not given, as demanded. He identified only the petitioner who he had known previously, but not others. This is a case where the Supreme Court had earlier frowned upon the practice of the Tribunal in re-appreciating the evidence, as if it were the Court of appeal and directed the enquiry to be undertaken and an order given on the basis of documents available and to ensure that there were legal evidence to support the findings. The Tribunal stayed within its boundaries and had come to the conclusion of finding of guilt of the petitioner on proper appraisal of the finding of the disciplinary authority. Pure finding of fact, No scope for interference: .8. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA Vs. K.A. KITTU AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 65 which lays down that the enquiry Officer was duty bound to consider the evidence of all the witnesses examined and not ignore the evidence of any witness in favour of the delinquent. There is no like situation as dealt with by the Supreme Court from which the petitioner could draw support in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that even if there was evidence to show about the petitioners association with the other staff of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, there was no direct material benefit to him and hence he could not be found guilty. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that even if there was evidence to show about the petitioners association with the other staff of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, there was no direct material benefit to him and hence he could not be found guilty. The payment of illegal gratification had been spoken to not merely by persons who made the payments, but by another witness. The presence of the petitioner was spoken to by the Driver of the Jeep. Therefore, there is no merit in his contention that there is no justification for finding him guilty. .Exoneration of main accused; effect on alleged associates involvement: 9. He further places reliance on Judgment in Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3424 where exoneration of the main offender while at the same time maintaining the charge against a member of the same party accompanying the main offender was adversely commented upon by the Supreme Court . The Supreme Court was there dealing with a case where a Police Constable was admittedly transporting 12 liquor bottles, which were contraband, in the dickey of the vehicle. The charge against yet another officer was that he did not exercise proper control over the driver of the vehicle who admitted to the guilt. In the departmental proceedings , the enquiry officer had held the superior officer as well as the person admitting the guilt liable for mis-conduct. Subsequently, the department set aside the finding on the ground that the driver had been acquitted in the criminal case and consequently set aside the punishment also, while at the same time retaining the punishment for the superior officer. It was in that context, the Court said that having been lenient to the principal accused who had admitted to the guilt before departmental proceedings but when acquitted in the criminal case, it was allowed to impinge on its own decision to exonerate the delinquent and freed him from punishment, But the conduct of maintaining the punishment against the superior officer was a case of brazen discrimination. The discrimination complained of by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the two other constables who were alleged to have been present, when the incident took place had been let off without any punishment. The discrimination complained of by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the two other constables who were alleged to have been present, when the incident took place had been let off without any punishment. The said contention also has no force since, the enquiry officer had found that no witness had come forward to support the version that two other police constables viz., PCs.200 and 995 were present along with the petitioner and others and with no evidence from any witness implicating the said two persons, it could not proceed to render any punishment to them. There was no case of discrimination there, but it was the case of a clear finding of lack of proof against two persons. Conclusion: 10. In the present case, there is clear evidence against the petitioner, as found out by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal. Strange are the ways of the world. In public life in India teeming with corruption, the big sharks escape the net. The small fish gobbling up smaller worms get caught. What morals do we signal to the society? There is nothing big or small, when it concerns corruption. Whoever is found guilty shall have to be shown the door. 11. Under these circumstances, we have no option, but to affirm the decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. However, there will be no order as to costs.