Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned Order of the 3rd Respondent dated 8. 2005 enhancing the punishment from dismissal of service and consequential order of the 1st Respondent dated 29. 2005 rejecting the mercy Petition submitted by the Petitioner and directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner joined in the Police Services as Gr.II Police Constable on 25. 1980 and subsequently, he was promoted as Gr.I Police Constable on 27. 1994. Thereafter, Petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 011. 1999. Petitioner put in 25 years of sincere service in the Department. (ii) Petitioner was served with Charge Memo dated 24. 2004 for three counts – (i) absented for guard duty on 12. 2004 between 14.00 hours and 23.45 hours; (ii) indisciplinary conduct by abusing HC 694 Raman, guard incharge and pulling his ears in a bid to assault him; (iii) reprehensible conduct in making false entry in the Sentry Relief Book at 22.50 hours on 12. 2004. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquire Officer had conducted oral enquiry by examining 11 witnesses and after conclusion of oral enquiry, Assistant Commissioner has filed his report on 212. 2004 holding that the Charges are proved. Petitioner submitted his explanation on the Enquiry Report to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. (iii) On 05. 2005, Dy. Commissioner of Police (Crime), Coimbatore City has passed final orders imposing punishment of reduction in rank for a period of one year to be spent on duty and Petitioner was served with the order. (iv) As per Rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D & A) Rules (for short TNPSS Rules), Petitioner has to prefer an appeal against the punishment of rank reduction, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order of original punishment. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City has issued show cause notice dated 26. 2005 calling for explanation as to why the punishment should not be enhanced and the notice was served with the Petitioner on 26. 2005. (v) On 07. 2005, Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner and Petitioner requested to drop further action. On 08. 2005 calling for explanation as to why the punishment should not be enhanced and the notice was served with the Petitioner on 26. 2005. (v) On 07. 2005, Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner and Petitioner requested to drop further action. On 08. 2005, Petitioner preferred an appeal before Director General of Police in person to cancel the original punishment of rank reduction and the appeal is still pending. While so, pending appeal, by order dated 8. 2005, Commissioner of Police had enhanced the punishment as dismissal from service. By order dated 29. 2005, Director General of Police, Chennai has rejected the mercy Petition preferred by the Petitioner. Challenging the order of 3rd Respondent dated 8. 2005 and order of the 1st 0Respondent rejecting the mercy Petition, Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. .3. Respondents have filed counter stating that during the service, Petitioner has earned four punishments. According to the Respondents on 12. 2004, Petitioner was deputed for guard duty at Convict Ward at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore found absent between 14.00 hours and 23.45 hours and later Petitioner behaved in an indisciplined manner by abusing Head Constable 694 Raman who was also at guard duty at the same place and made false entries in the Sentry Relief Book to the effect that HC 694 Raman absent. For these lapses departmental action was initiated against the Petitioner and Charge memo was issued to him. After holding enquiry, Enquiry Officer has filed his report and the copy of the report was communicated to the Petitioner. After scrutinizing all the records, 4th Respondent by his Order dated 05. 2005 awarded punishment of reduction of rank for one year. After issuing show cause notice, 3rd Respondent suo moto enhanced the punishment as dismissl from service. According to the Respondents, enquiry was held in accordance with the TNPSS Rules and observing the principles of natural justice. Considering the serious indisciplinary behaviour of the Petitioner, punishment of dismissal from service is neither excessive nor disproportinate. 4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. After issuing show cause notice, 3rd Respondent suo moto enhanced the punishment as dismissl from service. According to the Respondents, enquiry was held in accordance with the TNPSS Rules and observing the principles of natural justice. Considering the serious indisciplinary behaviour of the Petitioner, punishment of dismissal from service is neither excessive nor disproportinate. 4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when the 4th Respondent has awarded punishment of reduction in rank for a period of one year to be spent on duty and even before the appeal time was over, 3rd Respondent has issued show cause notice for enhancement of sentence which is in violation of TNPSS Rule 15(A). Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that when the punishment of reduction in rank itself is a major punishment, no specific reasonings were given for enhancing the punishment as dismissal from service. 5. Mr. N.Senthil Kumar, learned AGP (Writs) has submitted that it is not the case of no evidence and the Court cannot go into sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence. Learned AGP (Writs) further submitted that the order of 4th Respondent was received by the Petitioner on 15. 2005 and one month period expires on 16. 2005 and the show cause notice issued by the 3rd Respondent on 26. 2005 for enhancement of sentence cannot be said to be in violation of Rule 15(A) of TNPSS Rules. Learned AGP (Writs) further submitted that being disciplinary force, Petitioner was expected to maintain strict discipline and having regard to serious misconduct of the Petitioner, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportinate warranting interference. 6. First charge is absenting duty on 12. 2004 between 14.00 hours and 23.45 hours when the Petitioner was on relief incharge of guard at Convict Ward at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore. According to the Petitioner, he was continuously on duty on 12. 2004 night and he was due for rest from 14.00 hours to 22.00 hours on 12. 2004 and that he was late by only 50 minutes. Further, according to the Petitioner, he had stomach pain and he went to private medical officer and got treatment. Rejecting the defence plea, both Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority found that Petitioner being on duty in Convict Ward at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, he should have very prompt in reporting for duty in time. .7. Further, according to the Petitioner, he had stomach pain and he went to private medical officer and got treatment. Rejecting the defence plea, both Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority found that Petitioner being on duty in Convict Ward at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, he should have very prompt in reporting for duty in time. .7. Second charge relates to scuffle between the Petitioner and HC 694 Raman, wherein Petitioner is alleged to have pulled the ears of Raman in a bid to assualt him. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution (P.Ws.2 to 8) have categorically mentioned that they had not seen the alleged occurrence and that no such incident took place as alleged in the Charge Memo. Enquiry Officer has referred to the evidence of P.W.9 Saraswathi, Women S.I. who enquired HC 694 Raman had categorically stated that Petitioner scuffled with him and pulled his ears in a bid to assault him. Based on evidence of P.W.9 Women S.I., Enquiry Officer held that second charge also proved. 8. In so far as, third charge Petitioner alleged to have made false entry in the Sentry Relief Book at 22.50 hours about the absence of HC 694, Raman when he was actually present. P.W.4, S.I. of Police Senthilkumar checked the guard at Convict Ward at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore on 12. 2004 at 22.50 hours and he found HC 694 Raman was present. But the Petitioner is alleged to have made false entry in the Sentry Relief Book marking absence for HC 694 Raman. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that P.W.5 Gr.I PC 803 Rathinavel and P.W.6 PC 283 Chandrasekaran have categorically stated that HC 694 Raman was not present and that Enquiry Officer has not properly appreciated the evidence. 10. Conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is based upon the evidence. Exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India, High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal re-appreciating the evidence. Unless findings are based on no evidence or shown to be perverse, High Court will not interfere with the findings for the disciplinary proceedings. 11. 10. Conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is based upon the evidence. Exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution of India, High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal re-appreciating the evidence. Unless findings are based on no evidence or shown to be perverse, High Court will not interfere with the findings for the disciplinary proceedings. 11. Observng that once findings of fact are based on appreciation of evidence, in Writ jurisdiction High Court would not normally interfere with those factual findings, in Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factural findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and /or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that if shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty." 12. For the proved charges, 4th Respondent has imposed punishment of reduction in rank for a period of one year by the order dated 05. 2005. The same was received by the Petitioner on 15. 2005. 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority had issued show cause notice on 26. 2005 proposing to enhance the original punishment of reduction in rank imposed on the Petitioner. .13. 2005. The same was received by the Petitioner on 15. 2005. 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority had issued show cause notice on 26. 2005 proposing to enhance the original punishment of reduction in rank imposed on the Petitioner. .13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per Rule 15(A) TNPSS Rules, no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any Reviewing Authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed. Rule 9 of TNPSS Rules deals with procedure for preferring appeal. One month time is stipulated for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Stipulated time as per Rule 9 read as under:- ."No appeal shall be admitted by the appellate authority if it has not been preferred within one month from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against was communicated to the appellant; Provided that if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period, the appeal may be admitted by such authority if it is preferred within two months from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against was communicated to the appellant." .14. Punishment imposed on the Petitioner by order dated 05. 2005 was served upon the Petitioner on 15. 2005. One month time expires on 16. 2005. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as per Rule 9, the outer time limit for filing appeal is 60 days and therefore, Petitioner has time for filing the appeal till 17. 2005 and while so, show cause notice was served upon the Petitioner even on 26. 2005 proposing to enhance the original punishment of reduction in rank imposed on the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the enhanced punishment of dismissal from service is clear in violation of TNPSS Rules. 15. As pointed out earlier, time limit for preferring appeal before the Appellate Authority is one month. Only if the appellant satisfies the Appellate Authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within 30 days, the appeal may be admitted, if it is preferred within two months. Though, outer time limit has been given, it cannot be contended that the period of limitation stipulated for filing the appeal is 60 days. Only if the appellant satisfies the Appellate Authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within 30 days, the appeal may be admitted, if it is preferred within two months. Though, outer time limit has been given, it cannot be contended that the period of limitation stipulated for filing the appeal is 60 days. There is no force in the contention that notice for enhancing the punishment was served upon the Petitioner even before the appeal time. 16. Punishment of dismissal from service is mainly challenged on the ground that the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent is a non-speaking order and that the Appellate Authority had not taken into consideration the Petitioners 25 years of unblemished service with 40 Good Service entries. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that having regard to the charges, punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and disproportionate and without application of mind warranting interference by the High Court. 17. Placing reliance upon 1992 (4) SCC 54 (State of Punjab & Others v. Ram Singh, X-Constable), learned AGP (Writs) has contended that Petitioner being part of disciplinary force was expected to maintain strict discipline and assaulting another Head Constable is a grave misconduct and the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be disproportionate. 18. It is fairly well settled 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, High Court would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. 19. In (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), [Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "15. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesburys (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesburys (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. "16. 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." "17. 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)." 20. From the submissions, it comes to be known that Petitioner has 25 years of service. According to the Petitioner there was only 50 minutes delay in reporting for duty and Petitioner tried to explain the same by stating that he was suffering from illness. Scuffle between the personnel also appears to be in a spur of moment. Having regard to the nature of charges, in my considered view, that the major punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the nature of charges leveled against the Petitioner. Punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority – 4th Respondent imposing punishment of reduction in rank for a period of one year appears to be fair and reasonable. 21. In the result, the impugned order dated 8. 2005 passed by the 3rd Respondent is set aside and thus Writ Petition is partly allowed. " Punishment awarded by the 4th Respondent i.e. reduction in rank for a period of one year to be spent on duty is restored; " Petitioner shall be reinstated into service within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. Punishment of reduction in rank shall start from the date of Petitioners re-joining; Period during which Petitioner was out of service shall be treated as leave on loss of pay. Punishment of reduction in rank shall start from the date of Petitioners re-joining; Period during which Petitioner was out of service shall be treated as leave on loss of pay. Petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary during that period. However, that period shall be taken into account for continuity of service.