Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the First Respondent in C.No.D1(2)/PR 141/97 dated 17.02.2005 and confirmed by the proceedings of the Second Respondent in C.No.B3/AP/13/05 dated 09.04.2005 and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. 2. Brief facts, which lead to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) The Petitioner entered into Police Department as Grade-II Police Constable on 110. 1972 FN and he got promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 22.08.1994 FN. (ii) Alleging that on 26.09.1996, the Petitioner came to the District Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram, and used unparliamentary words in a high tone towards one Ganthareegan, Gr.I Police Constable of A.6 Villupuram, who was then on guard duty at the Court and caused disturbance to the functioning of Court, a case was registered against the Petitioner in Villupuram Town P.S.Cr.No.547/96 U/s. 75 of MCP Act. The Criminal Case was subsequently closed as "Action Dropped" enabling to initiate departmental action. (iii) On 010. 1997, the Petitioner was issued with a Charge U/r.3(b) in P.R.141/97 for "Highly reprehensible and in disciplinary conduct in having himself involved in Villupuram Town P.S.Cr.No.547/96 U/s.75 MCP Act on 26.09.1996", by the First Respondent. (iv) In 1998, the Petitioner was dealt with another charge in P.R.No.213/98 U/r.3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955, for having been found in intoxication mood and for which an enquiry was conducted and as the Petitioner was found guilty, he was removed from service on 14.04.1999 AN by the First Respondent. Based on the orders of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2737/01 dated 19.04.2004, the Petitioner was reinstated into service w.e.f. 20.08.2004 with a modified punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and denial of back wages for the period of his unemployment. (v) Consequent on reinstatement of Petitioner, the First Respondent conducted enquiry in P.R.141/97 U/r.3(b). The witnesses were examined and nine prosecution documents were marked. The Petitioner in his explanation has submitted that," his mode of talking was always in high tone, which was misconstrued by the Public Prosecutor..". After analysis of documents and explanation of Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer by his findings dated 22.01.2005 arrived at the conclusion that the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved. The Petitioner in his explanation has submitted that," his mode of talking was always in high tone, which was misconstrued by the Public Prosecutor..". After analysis of documents and explanation of Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer by his findings dated 22.01.2005 arrived at the conclusion that the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, First Respondent by his proceedings dated 18.02.2005 passed an order removing the Petitioner from service. (vi) The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Second Respondent was dismissed on 09.04.2005, confirming the punishment awarded by the First Respondent, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. L. Chandrakumar has submitted that when the main witness K. Ganthareegan has deposed that there was no misconduct on the part of the Petitioner, the punishment awarded by the First Respondent is highly disproportionate and unsustainable. It was further argued while the charge is for the one occurrence, the antecedents cannot be taken into account for imposing the punishment. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. N. Senthilkumar has submitted that based upon the materials, Enquiry Officer held that the charge is proved. Learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that the Petitioner being in disciplinary force was expected to maintain strict discipline and having regard to the serious misconduct of dereliction of duty by way of not reporting for escort duty in time, the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate warranting interference. If the lapses are to be condoned, it would seriously affect the morality of the disciplinary force. .5. The charges levelled against the Petitioner are grave in nature. On 26.09.1996 the Petitioner has to escort the accused concerned in Veppur P.S.Cr.No.309/85 u/s 302 IPC and 201 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Villuppuram. HC 1149 Jayaraman came to Sub-jail, Villupuram at 10.30 a.m. and waited for the Petitioner to come and the Petitioner had not turned up. HC 1149 Jayaraman with the assistance of PC 822 Balakrishnan of Sankarapuram P.S. took the accused to the Court and produced the accused in the Court and got the case adjourned to 27.09.1996. HC 1149 Jayaraman came to Sub-jail, Villupuram at 10.30 a.m. and waited for the Petitioner to come and the Petitioner had not turned up. HC 1149 Jayaraman with the assistance of PC 822 Balakrishnan of Sankarapuram P.S. took the accused to the Court and produced the accused in the Court and got the case adjourned to 27.09.1996. Thereafter the Petitioner is alleged to have come to Judicial Magistrate, villupuram in uniform and used unparliamentary words in a high tone towards Gr.I PC 1327 Ganthareegan of A.R. Villupuram who was then on guard duty and is alleged to have caused disturbance to the functioning of the Court. On a written complaint of the Gr.I PC 1327 case was registered against the Petitioner in Villupuram Town P.S. Cr.No.547/96 u/s. 75 MCP. Petitioner was sent to the medical test where he was found to have consumed alcohol. Petitioner was suspended and he was dealt with for the charge u/r 3(b) in P.R.141/97. 6. On the basis of evidence in Exs.P1 to P9, Enquiry Officer held that delinquent Grade I PC has not attended the escort duty on on 26.09.1996 at 03.00 p.m. Petitioner came to Court Judicial Magistrate, Villuppuram in uniform in a drunken mood and used unparliamentary words in a high tone towards Gr.I.PC 1327 and the Enquiry Ofiicer held the charges proved. 7. Laying emphasis upon the statement of Gr.I PC 1327 Ganthareegan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence of Ganthareegan who clearly deposed that the Petitioner did not commit any misconduct the Enquiry Officer has not even stated in his report as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the charge is proved. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the case registered against the Petitioner in Villuppuram Town P.S.Cr.No.547/96 u/s 75 MCP was with drawn. The Respondents failed to consider withdrawal of criminal case against the Petitioner. 9. Gr.I. PC 1327 Ganthareegan, did not specifically state that the Petitioner used unparliamentary words, but on the basis of medical evidence, Enquiry Officer clearly held that the Petitioner came to Judicial Magistrate Court, Villuppuram at 03.00 p.m. in a drunken mood and the Petitioner being a part of disciplinary force, was expected to maintain discipline in attending duty in time. Gr.I. PC 1327 Ganthareegan, did not specifically state that the Petitioner used unparliamentary words, but on the basis of medical evidence, Enquiry Officer clearly held that the Petitioner came to Judicial Magistrate Court, Villuppuram at 03.00 p.m. in a drunken mood and the Petitioner being a part of disciplinary force, was expected to maintain discipline in attending duty in time. This is all the more so, when he was expected to escort the murder accused and produce before the District Judicial Magistrate, Villuppuram. Finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 10. Acquittal/Withdrawal would not Ipso facto make the disciplinary proceedings invalid. The scope of departmental proceedings and the scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct and independent of each other. 11. In Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.( (2005) 7 SCC 764 ) the Supreme Court has held that acquittal of a delinquent by a criminal court would not preclude an employer from taking action by the disciplinary authority, if it is otherwise permissible. Such a departmental proceeding, however, cannot be initiated mala fide. It must be conducted in accordance with law. An acquittal of a delinquent ipso facto may not absolve him from undergoing disciplinary inquiry. However, where the charges are absolutely identical, ordinarily the same would not be taken resorted (sic resort) to. .12. In Commr. of Police v. Narender Singh ( (2006) 4 SCC 265 ) wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of a police constable, who was accused of committing theft of arms. He made a confession of his involvement. It was found to be inadmissible in the criminal proceeding. In that factual backdrop the Supreme Court has held as under: .“12. It is not in dispute that the standard of proof required in recording a finding of conviction in a criminal case and in a departmental proceeding are distinct and different. Whereas in a criminal case, it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt, in a departmental proceeding preponderance of probability would serve the purpose. (See Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. ( (2002) 1 SCC 555 ) 13. Whereas in a criminal case, it is essential to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubt, in a departmental proceeding preponderance of probability would serve the purpose. (See Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. ( (2002) 1 SCC 555 ) 13. It is now well settled by reason of a catena of decisions of this Court that if an employee has been acquitted of a criminal charge, the same by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a departmental proceeding against him or to drop the same in the event an order of acquittal is passed.” 13. While appearing in the Court in uniform the Petitioner was expected to maintain discipline and decorum the Petitioner having appeared in the Court premises in drunken mood it cannot be contended that withdrawal of criminal case would terminate the disciplinary proceedings. 14. In so far as quantum of sentence is concerned also the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be harsh and disproportionate. In AIR 2000 SC 1151 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others the Honble Supreme Court has held that where the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee shocks the conscience of the court, the court can interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is disproportionate. 15. Observing that Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by doctrine of proportionality, in (2008) 3 SCC 273 State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Hazarilal, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: "........ 8. An authority which is conferred with a statutory discretionary power is bound to take into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances of the case before imposing an order of punishment. While exercising such power, the Disciplinary Authority must act reasonably and fairly. The Respondent occupied the lowest rank of the cadre. He was merely a contingency peon. Continuation of his service in the Department would not bring a bad name to the State. He was not convicted for any act involving moral turpitude. He was not punished for any heinous offence. ...... 11. Furthermore, the legal parameters of judicial review have undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality. Continuation of his service in the Department would not bring a bad name to the State. He was not convicted for any act involving moral turpitude. He was not punished for any heinous offence. ...... 11. Furthermore, the legal parameters of judicial review have undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality. (See Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kannan [ (2006) 11 SCC 67 , State of U.P. V. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava [ (2006) 3 SCC 276 ] and M.P.Gangadharan v. State of Kerala [ (2006) 6 SCC 162 ]) 16. In the impugned order of punishment it is stated that the Petitioner was previously having number of black marks. The details of such black marks are not known. Petitioner has completed more than 25 years of service. Other than the charges, there seems to be no other serious charges. While so, the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be harsh and disproportionate. Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority did not keep in view the mitigating aspects. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case and the long service the Petitioner had put in, ends of justice would be met, if the punishment of dismissal from service is modified as compulsory retirement. 17. The impugned order in C.No.D1(2)/PR 141/97 dated 17.02.2005 as confirmed by the second Respondent in C.No.B3/AP/13/05 dated 09.04.2005 is modified and the punishment of dismissal from service is modified as compulsory retirement. "The Respondents shall pay DCRG and other retiral benefits to the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Respondents shall also process the pension paper of the Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.