Judgment :- D. Hariparanthaman, J. 1. The first respondent is a Police Constable. He was working in the Tirunelveli Town police station. He was a tenant in the premises belonging to one Palanichamy Thevar. On 25.01.1982, the said Palanichamy Thevar along with his family members went to Tiruchendur Temple for darshan of lord Muruga. There, one Annavi @ Muthusubramanian offered to assist the family of the said Palanichamy Thevar to perform the archana services. After worship, they left the temple. Later, they found that the gold chain on the child was missing. The said Palanichamy Thevar complained the same to the Tiruchendur Police Station. Based on the complaint, the said Annavi was taken to the Police Station, wherein he was beaten. He was taken to some un-known place and was beaten by four un-known persons. He was also taken to Tirunelveli. He was again brought back to Tiruchendur Police Station on 28.01.1982. 2. The complaint given by the father of the said Annavi about the illegal detention and torture was enquired into by the Revenue Divisional Officer at the instance of the District Collector. Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a charge memo dated 07.04.1984 was issued against the first respondent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikuntam. Two charges were framed against the first respondent and the same are as follows: "i. Gross misconduct in having abused police authority by making personal investigation into an alleged of complaint of theft against Tiruchendur temple "archakar" Annavi @ Muthusubramanian, in order to favour his house-owner from 26.01.1982 to 28.01.1982. ii) Reprehensible conduct in having assaulted and tortured Annavi @ Muthusubramanian between 26.01.1982 to 28.01.1982". 3. However, the Enquiry Officer found the charge No.1 as proved and the charge No.2 as not proved. 4. The disciplinary authority dismissed the first respondent from service by an order dated 012. 1984 disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.2 and holding that both the charges are proved. 5. The appeal preferred by the first respondent dated 05.01.1986 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 11.06.1985. However, the Appellate Authority held that the charge No.2 was not established. The Revision preferred by the first respondent was dismissed by an order dated 112. 1985. Mercy Petition filed by the first respondent before the first petitioner was also dismissed in G.O.Ms.No.1423, Home (Pol.VII) Department, dated 03.06.1986. 6. However, the Appellate Authority held that the charge No.2 was not established. The Revision preferred by the first respondent was dismissed by an order dated 112. 1985. Mercy Petition filed by the first respondent before the first petitioner was also dismissed in G.O.Ms.No.1423, Home (Pol.VII) Department, dated 03.06.1986. 6. The first respondent thereafter filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.198 of 1988 to quash the dismissal order. The writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was taken on file in Transfer Application No.23 of 1992. 7. The Tribunal, passed an order dated 24.01.2003, holding that the charge No.1 was also not established and thus there is no basis for imposing penalty. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein, to reinstate the first respondent in service and granted all wages and other monetary benefits for the period of his un-employment. 8. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 24.01.2003 passed in Tr.A.No.23 of 1992 by the Tribunal. 9. Heard both sides. We have perused the entire materials on record. 10. The learned Special Government Pleader strenuously contended that the Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the charge No.1 was not established. He further submits that there is enough evidence to show that the first respondent abused the Police authority by making personal investigation into the complaint of theft against archagar Annavi in order to favour his house-owner from 26.01.1982 to 28.01.1982 and produced the entire file for perusal. The crux of his argument is that though there was no evidence to show that he had beaten the said Annavi, he interfered in the investigation to favour his house-owner and thereby abused his authorities as a police personnel. 11. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Tribunal passed a well considered and detailed order. He heavily relied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he pointed out that except the concluding paragraph, the Enquiry Officer recorded findings on various aspects in favour of the defence. He pointed out that while the said Annavi made a written complaint, he did not implicate the first respondent, while he implicated the Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of Tiruchendur Police Station. He further submits that even during enquiry, the said Annavi did not name the first respondent as a person who had beaten him. 12. He pointed out that while the said Annavi made a written complaint, he did not implicate the first respondent, while he implicated the Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of Tiruchendur Police Station. He further submits that even during enquiry, the said Annavi did not name the first respondent as a person who had beaten him. 12. It is true that the report of the Enquiry Officer runs to several pages and almost the entire discussion is in favour of the first respondent. Even, the Enquiry Officer recorded that it was the said Palanichamy Thevar who brought the Annavi from Tiruchendur to Tirunelveli. Further, the Enquiry Officer found fault with first respondent by only stating that the first respondent being Police Constable, he could have reported the matter at Tirunelveli and he did not do so and instead the first respondent accompanied Palanichamy Thevar along with Annavi from Tirunelveli to Tiruchendur Town Police Station. This was the reason for holding the charge No.1 proved. 13. The learned counsel for the first respondent argued that since the entire discussion was in favour of the defence, the conclusion and the reasons stated in the last but one paragraph has to be rejected. He further argued that the police officers named by Annavi as having beaten him were not proceeded with. It was further argued that he has been without employment for the past 25 years from 1984. 14. Taking into account the above facts, we are inclined to sustain the order of the Tribunal in so far as the reinstatement is concerned and to deny backwages for a substantial period, as we are of the view that though the first charge as framed is not made out and however, it could not be said that he did not favour the landlord in the matter relating to Annavi, for which he should not be rewarded wages for 25 years. 115. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the first respondent fairly submitted that backwages need not be paid for the entire period, but it may be paid from the date of order of the Tribunal passed in Tr.A.No.23 of 1992 i.e. 24.01.2003. He further submitted that the first respondent should be deemed to be in service for the entire period of non-employment so as to count the service for seniority, fixation of pay, pensionary and other benefits. 116. He further submitted that the first respondent should be deemed to be in service for the entire period of non-employment so as to count the service for seniority, fixation of pay, pensionary and other benefits. 116. In these circumstances, the order dated 24.01.2003 passed in Tr.A.No.23 of 1992 by the Tribunal is modified and the petitioners are directed to reinstate the first respondent in service within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to pay him wages from 24.01.2003 till the date of reinstatement and the entire period of non-employment will be treated as services for purpose of seniority, fixation of pay, pensionary and other benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.