Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 10.06.2004 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect and consequential order passed by the 2nd Respondent ordering recovery of Rs.16,776/-. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as sub Inspector of Police on 28.09.1987 FN. For the delinquencies committed by the Petitioner, Petitioner was placed under suspension from 112. 1989 FN to 20.03.1991 FN, from 01.04.1991 AN to 212. 1991 FN and from 111. 1992 FN to 211. 1992 FN. 3. Petitioner wasserved with a charge memo in PR No.351/H1/1994 u/r 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 on 27.07.1994 for having taken one Thekkamalai to Manapparai Police Station on 26.07.1989 without making any entry in the registers maintained in the Police station and for having confined him illegally and failure to comply with the provisions of the Police Standing Order 145. 4. Petitioner was also charged for gross neglect of duty in having failed to comply with the provisions of order No.145(1)(b) of PSO Vol-I on 27.07.1989 in connection with an allegation of rape by Sub-Inspector of Police- Rajamanickam of Vaiyampatti P.S. Crime. 5. Charge memo dated 15. 1994 was issued by the DIG Tiruchirappalli Range. Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappali was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has drawn minute on 07.08.1997, holding that all three counts of charges proved against the Petitioner. After issuing the 2nd show cause notice and upon consideration of further representation from the Petitioner by the impugned order 1st Respondent has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect for the proved charges u/r 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules) . Second Respondent has also ordered recovery of monetary value equivalent to above punishment amounting to Rs.16,766/-in 24 monthly installments. 6. Elaborating upon various charges the Respondents filed counter stating that the charges leveled against the Petitioner are substantiated through evidences on record. The punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect awarded by the Government and the same was implemented by the 2nd Respondent. According to Respondents, the Government considered the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment for the charges proved against the Petitioner. 7. The punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect awarded by the Government and the same was implemented by the 2nd Respondent. According to Respondents, the Government considered the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment for the charges proved against the Petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that even in the absence of any evidence for substantiating charges 1 and 2, Enquiry Officer fell in error in finding the Petitioner guilty on charges 1 and 2. The learned counsel further submitted that one Jebamani was similarly placed as that of the Petitioner challenging the punishment imposed to him in O.A.5620/02 and the punishment imposed upon Jebamani was quashed. It was urged that the Petitioner is similarly placed as that of Jebamani and that the criminal case ended in acquittal. Departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded against and the punishment imposed is liable to be set aside. .8. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar has submitted that based upon the materials, Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. It was further argued that the Petitioner is not similarly place as that of Jebamani. Placing reliance upon 2005 (1) CTC 625 [The Management of Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2 v. S.Anthonysamy and another] and other decisions the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that acquittal of criminal case is not a bar to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that the Petitioner being a Police officer was expected to maintain strict discipline and the punishment of stoppage of increment of two years with cumulative effect is proportionately less and the same cannot be interfered with. 9. First charge against the Petitioner is the reprehensible conduct in having taken one Thekkamalai to the Police Station on 27. 1989 without making any entry in the register maintained in the Police Station. Complaint relates to loss of a bag from the scene of accident preferred by the owner of the lorry on 27. 1989 and criminal case was registered in Cr.No.152/1989 at Vaiyampatti P.S. According to the Petitioner, Thekkamalai was arrested and brought to the Police Station at 23.40 on 27. 1989 hours and the accused was dispatched at 22.00 hours on 27. 1989 and criminal case was registered in Cr.No.152/1989 at Vaiyampatti P.S. According to the Petitioner, Thekkamalai was arrested and brought to the Police Station at 23.40 on 27. 1989 hours and the accused was dispatched at 22.00 hours on 27. 1989 to be produced before Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai for remand and therefore, there is absolutely no question of not making any entry regarding bringing Thekkamalai to the Police Station. 10. In so far as second charge to Petitioner alleged to have confined Thekkamalai who was brought to the Police Station on 27. 1989 in connection with Vaiyampatti P.S. Cr.No.152/1989 U/s.379 I.P.C. and having produced him before the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai on 27. 1989. 11. To substantiate 1st and 2nd Charges one Poochi (P.W.1) has stated that at 2.00 P.M. on 27. 1989 Thekkamalais brother Palani requested him to speak to the Police and arrange for the release of Thekkamalai since he had taken by the Police on the allegation that he had taken away a bag from the accident site.P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.7 have also stated that around 5.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. in the evening of 27. 1989, relatives of Thekkamalai have met them separately and requested to arrange for the release of Thekkamalai. In his evidence P.W.1 Poochi has also stated that Palani and Mamundi both brothers of Thekkamalai have met him with the same request. Upon analysis of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 7, Enquiry Officer found that Thekkamalai was brought to the Police Station on 27. 1989 at about 2.00 P.M. in connection with Cr.No.152/1989 U/s.379 IPC of Vaiyampatti P.S. and kept him in the lock up without making any entries in the G.D., Sentry Relief Book, PSR and Arrest card. 12. Upon perusal of records, Enquiry Officer has found that in the Sentry Book, there is no entry to show that at about 23.45 hours on 27. 1989 Thekkamalai was brought to the Vaiyampatti P.S. in connection with Cr.No.152/1989 and after proper check up, he was handed over to the Police constables and the same has been shown as last entry made on 27. 1989. Enquiry Officer has also pointed out that just above that entry, there is an entry with the date 27. 1989. Enquiry Officer noticed that date has been originally written as 27. 1989 and time as 13.45 hours and they have been subsequently corrected as 27. 1989. Enquiry Officer has also pointed out that just above that entry, there is an entry with the date 27. 1989. Enquiry Officer noticed that date has been originally written as 27. 1989 and time as 13.45 hours and they have been subsequently corrected as 27. 1989 and time as 23.45 hours by over writings. It was also noticed that the corrections have not been attested by the person who made the entry or by any other Police officials. The most glaring tampering of the records was also noticed in the copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.152/1989 (Ex.P7) wherein 1st page of F.I.R. in Col.2 the date and time appear to have been written, erased and rewritten more than once and finally shown as 27. 89/21.00 hours. Alteration was found to be so conspicuous that it readily attracts ones notice. Likewise, in the 2nd page of F.I.R. in the first line date has been corrected from 27 to 27. 1989. Upon analysis of documents and oral evidence, Enquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion that Thekkamalai was taken from the scene of accident to the Police Station on 27. 1989 at about 2.00 P.M. when no case was registered and that he was detained in the Police Station and thereafter, he was produced before the Magistrate Court at Manapparai only on 27. 1989 at about 1.00 P.M. and found that second count of charge was proved. Based upon the evidence, Enquiry Officer has found that the 2nd Charge was proved and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. 13. In so far as, 3rd Charge, Petitioner is alleged with gross neglect of duty in having failed to comply with the provisions of Order No.145(1)(b) of PSO Vol.I on 27. 1989 in connection with the allegation of rape by S.I. of Police, Rajamanickam of Vaiyampatti crime. 14. Lakshmi, wife of Thekkamalai (P.W.7) has preferred a complaint to the effect that she was raped by S.I. of Police Rajamanickam of Vaiyampatti P.S. on 27. 1989. Charge against the Petitioner is that, though he was the SHO of Vaiyampatti P.S. and has come to know about the incident, immediately or afterwards, he has not sent any immediate report to the Sub Collector. 1989. Charge against the Petitioner is that, though he was the SHO of Vaiyampatti P.S. and has come to know about the incident, immediately or afterwards, he has not sent any immediate report to the Sub Collector. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the alleged victim Lakshmi did not make any complaint in the Police Station and that she made complaint only before D.S.P., Manapparai that she was raped and that Petitioner was duly complied with the provisions of Sec.145 PSO immediately when the allegation was made known to him and therefore, third Charge is baseless. 15. Based upon the report of Sub Collector, Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that Petitioner who has come to know about the incident immediately or afterwards has not sent any immediate report to the office. 16. Perusal of the report would clearly show that Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that the Charges against the Petitioner are proved. As held in catena of decisions once findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, High Court in Writ jurisdiction would not normally interfere with those findings unless it finds the recorded findings were based on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse or legally untenable. Adequacy or inadequacy of evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court ( AIR 1999 SC 625 (Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.Chopra). 17. Petitioner and three others were charged for the offences u/s.365 and 342 IPC and were convicted in S.C.No.2/1997. Petitioner and others have preferred an Appeal in Crl.Appeal No.31/2000 and the appeal was allowed setting aside the conviction. Based on allowing of Criminal Appeal, another delinquent Jebamani has preferred O.A.No.5620/2002 before Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for two year with cumulative effect. Referring to Captain Paul Antonys case AIR 1999 SC 1416 , Tribunal has quashed the punishment imposed upon the delinquent Jebamani. 18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Petitioner is similarly placed as that of Jebamani and when the punishment imposed upon Jebamani has been quashed by the Tribunal and Jebamani was absolved of charges, findings of the Tribunal are applicable to the Petitioner also. .19. The above contention does not merit acceptance. 18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Petitioner is similarly placed as that of Jebamani and when the punishment imposed upon Jebamani has been quashed by the Tribunal and Jebamani was absolved of charges, findings of the Tribunal are applicable to the Petitioner also. .19. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Charge memo has been issued to Jebamani for having taken Thekkamalai to the Police Station on 27. 1989 as it would amount to abduction as defined in Sec.362 IPC. Criminal case was also registered against Jebamani and others u/s.365 and 342 IPC and they were charge sheeted. Since both disciplinary proceedings and criminal case proceeded on the same set of facts viz., abduction and wrongful confinement of Thekkamalai, applying Captain Paul Antonys case, Tribunal has quashed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect imposed upon Jebamani. 20. Petitioner cannot be said to be similarly placed as that of Jebamani. Criminal case and charges framed against the Petitioner are not on the same set of facts. As pointed out earlier, 1st charge relates to not making any entry in the Register maintained in the Police Station after taking Thekkamalai to Police Station on 27. 1989 and the 2nd Charge is in respect of production of Thekkamalai before Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai on 27. 1989 beyond 24 hours of taking him to police custody. 3rd charge relates to the non-compliance of PSO 145 (1) (b) in connection with allegation of rape by S.I. of Police Rajamanickam. Evidently, the charges framed against the Petitioner are not on the same set of facts on which the criminal case proceeded. In such circumstances, Petitioner cannot be said to be similarly placed as that of Jebamani. 21. The two proceedings – the departmental and the criminal – are entirely different in nature. They operate in different fields and they have different objectives. In a criminal trial, an incriminating statement made by an accused, in certain circumstances or before certain officials, is totally inadmissible in evidence. In a departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer is not bound by any technical rules of evidence and procedure. The degree of proof which is necessary to record an order of conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of a delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not identical. The degree of proof which is necessary to record an order of conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of a delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not identical. In view of the above circumstances, the holding of the departmental enquiry after an order of acquittal recorded by a competent Criminal Court cannot be said to be illegal, contrary to law or violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. [See State of A.P. v. Venkata Rao, AIR 1975 SC 2151 : (1975) 2 SCC 557 ; State of A.P. v. Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 3 SCR 25 ; Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966 : (1969) 3 SCR 548 ]. 22. [See State of A.P. v. Venkata Rao, AIR 1975 SC 2151 : (1975) 2 SCC 557 ; State of A.P. v. Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 3 SCR 25 ; Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, AIR 1969 SC 966 : (1969) 3 SCR 548 ]. 22. After considering relevant case law on the subject in Captain Paul Antonys case, the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:- "(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately; (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case; (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet; .(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed; .(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest....." 23. Exercising power under Standing Orders of the Corporation, an employee was dismissed from service. However, he was acquitted by a Criminal Court in a case instituted against him. Exercising power under Standing Orders of the Corporation, an employee was dismissed from service. However, he was acquitted by a Criminal Court in a case instituted against him. He, therefore, contended that after acquittal he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and explaining the scope of criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry, in (2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L & S) 1020 [Ajit Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation], the Supreme Court has held as under :- "As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings-criminal and departmental – are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, an incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings." "The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside". 24. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside". 24. In (2006) 6 SCC 366 [Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and others v. Mansaram Nainwal), the Supreme Court has held that whether continuation of departmental proceedings would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings are different. Decision in one does not ipso facto result in the decision of another. Normally, in a criminal case allegation against the accused is that whether he has committed an act which amount to offence under Indian Penal Code or any other substantive law relating to such offence and punishment be imposed on him, but in the case of departmental proceedings, the scope of enquiry is whether the allegations leveled against the delinquent would amount to misconduct under relevant service Rules, Regulations and Standing Orders. As pointed out earlier, criminal case and the charges leveled against the Petitioner stand on different set of facts. 25. In AIR 1984 SC 626 (Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur and another v. Ramchandra G.Modak and others), Supreme Court has held as follows:- "6. The other question that remains is if the respondents are acquitted in the criminal case whether or not the departmental inquiry pending against the respondents would have to continue. This is a matter which is to be decided by the department after considering the nature of the findings given by the Criminal Court. Normally, where the accused is acquitted honorably and completely exonerated of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds or evidence, but the fact remains, however, that merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its direction (discretion) in any way fettered" Merely because of criminal case ended in acquittal, it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that acquittal of criminal case would automatically put an end to departmental enquiry also. For the proved charges, Government has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. 26. Observing that in service matters, the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, in (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), [Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations, it may in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed." " The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and another v. K.G.Soni 2006 (6) Supreme 389 : 2006 III LLJ 802 (SC) following Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and others v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005-I-LLJ-730 (SC). 27. As submitted by the learned Addl. Government Pleader (Writs), the punishment imposed on the Petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate and the same need not be interfered with. 28. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Writ Petition, Petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before the concerned authorities for declaration of his Probation and other consequential benefits and on such representation being made, concerned authorities shall consider the Petitioners representation in accordance with law.