Judgment : The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent, passed in C. No. J1/01/PR/2004, dated 5.8.2004, imposing a punishment of removal from service and consequential order of the second respondent in C. No. AP/30/D2/2004, dated 13.9.2004, confirming the punishment imposed by the first respondent and direct the first respondent to reinstate him in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner joined the Police Services as Grade-II Police Constable on 15.5.1977 and promoted as Head Constable on 22.7.2002. while he was working in Karnya Nagar Police Station, one Pavithran of Vannarapet, Podanur, preferred a complaint, against him in Podanur Police Station in Cr. No. 586 of 2003 under Section 294(b) and 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act that he created public nuisance on 12.10.2003 at 13.00 hrs. Based on the said complaint, the petitioner was arrested and placed under suspension. Following a preliminary enquiry, a charge in P.R. No. 1 of 2004 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules was framed against the petitioner, alleging that he had absented himself from bandobust duty at the residence of a former Judge of Madras High Court on 12.10.2003 and found standing in front of a Bakery, owned by Pavithran at 13.00 hrs, on the same day, abused the general public and the said Pavithran in a filthy language, which resulted in the registration of a criminal case in Cr. No. 586 of 2003 against the petitioner and later on, it was withdrawn by the department. Following a disciplinary enquiry, by order dated 5.8.2004, the petitioner was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore. Statutory appeal preferred against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore on 20.8.2004. Aggrieved by the orders of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Though the petitioner has submitted that the charge has not been established by the disciplinary authorities on the basis of any acceptable evidence and that he has not committed any deliquency, Mr, S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission only to the question of proportionality of punishment awarded to the petitioner. 3. Though the petitioner has submitted that the charge has not been established by the disciplinary authorities on the basis of any acceptable evidence and that he has not committed any deliquency, Mr, S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission only to the question of proportionality of punishment awarded to the petitioner. Placing reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4024 of 2005, dated 1.10.2007, he submitted that as both the authorities have decided to eliminate the petitioner from service for the proved charges, they ought to have considered his unblemished service record, while imposing such a major penalty. The order of dismissal not only resulted in deprivation of petitioners employment, but also his survival, who was aged about 54 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the punishment of removal from service can suitably be modified into one of compulsory retirement. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, referring to the impugned orders submitted that the petitioner has indulged in gross indisciplinary and unbecoming conduct of a police man in having absented for bondobust duty in the residence of a former judge of this Court and also found in drunken mood, abusing in filthy language against the owner of a shop as well as the general public. He has further submitted that as the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the punishment of removal from service imposed by the respondents does not warrant interference. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. While considering the proportionality of the punishment awarded to a policeman, this Court in W. P. (MD) No. 4024 of 2005 dated 1.10.2007, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari Union of India and Others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari Union of India and Others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC) and an unreported order in W.P. No. 22983 of 2005, dated 13.8.2007 ( V. C. Rajamanickam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another ), modified the penalty of removal into one of compulsory retirement. 6. 6. In Union of India and Others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari Union of India and Others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari Union of India and Others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari ( supra), the Supreme Court observed that in an exceptional rare case, the Court can interfere with the disproportionate punishment and at paragraphs 15 to 17, it has been held as follows at p. 286 of MLJ: “ 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 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn ( 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 it 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 the 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 v. K. G. Soni Union of India v. K. G. Soni Union of India v. K. G. Soni (2006) 6 Supreme 389 :2006-III-LLJ-802 (SC) following Damoh Pama Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jai Damoh Pama Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jai Damoh Pama Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jai AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 :2005-I-LLJ-730.” 7. In an unreported order in W.P. No. 22983 of 2005, dated 13.8.2007, the Division Bench of this Court at Paragraph 18, held as follows: “As contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has put in a long number of years of service and there is no adverse entries in his annual confidential reports and in such circumstances, if the punishment of dismissal from service is imposed not only the petitioner but his entire family will be put to great hardship. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if punishment of dismissal from service is modified into one of compulsory retirement since both the penalties are major penalties and the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be disproportionate and not commensurate with the act of delinquency of the petitioner. Hence we modify the dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement.” 8. No doubt, in the case on hand, the petitioner being a police constable, ought to have attended the duty, as directed by the higher officials and that his conduct in the public exhibits is inorderly manner, warranting major punishment such as dismissal from service. Further, having regard to the fact that the petitioner, as a police man, rendered service for more than 27 years and there being no counter affidavit filed by the respondents, pointing out any adverse remarks or punishment awarded to the petitioner during his entire service, I am of the view that the punishment of removal from service would certainly affect the interest of the family members of the petitioner and at this stage, it would not be possible for the petitioner to get any employment. While modifying the penalty into one of compulsory retirement, this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 4024 of 2005, dated 1.10.2007, has observed as follows: “This Court is of the view that while the petitioners misconduct cannot be condoned and he must be imposed only with major penalty, but, however, considering the penalty now imposed, it is clear that it will result in serious consequences of not only depriving the petitioner his employment but also the very survival of the family will be in question. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision referred to above, this Court is of the view that punishment of removal from service requires modification.” 9. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision referred to above, this Court is of the view that punishment of removal from service requires modification.” 9. The facts of the above unreported decision relate to charges of corruption levelled against a policeman, which resulted in removal from service. In the case on hand, in the absence of any counter affidavit by the respondents pointing out any adverse remarks or punishment against the petitioner, who had put in long number of years of service and taking into consideration that the entire family will be put to serious hardship, ends of justice would be met if the punishment of removal is modified into one of compulsory retirement. I am of the view that no doubt the petitioner ought to have been diligent and behaved in a proper manner, the members of the petitioners family should not suffer for the misconduct of the petitioner. 10. In the result, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside and the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner is modified into one of the compulsory retirement. The writ petition is allowed to the limited extent as indicated above. It is open to the petitioner to submit his pension papers within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall process the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously. No costs.