Judgment :- This Writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenging the G.O.(3D) No. 95, dated 18. 2005 imposing punishment of censure. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, while he was serving as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Airport Security, was served with a charge memo containing two charges, which reads as follows:- "(i) Reprehensible conduct in behaving high handed manner by getting the bullet proof car provided to Tr. Prakash Singh Badal, Honble Chief Minister of Punjab, who arrived at Chennai Airport on 111. 2000, towed despite protests from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security and thereby causing damages to the Superintendent of Police Car effecting serious breach of security in disabling the use of sanitized BP car to a very high risk category VIP. (ii) Causing financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,02,602/- for getting the B.P. Car, which was damaged due to his high handed act repaired." 3. The statement of allegation namely imputation of misconduct or misbehavior is as follows:- "Tr. K. Antony Samy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, formerly Airport Security, now working as Deputy Superintendent of Police DCB Dindigul was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Domestic Terminal Airport with effect from 5. 2000. The post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Domestic Terminal is very important one, invoking security of various VIPs on their visits. On 111. 2000, Tr. Prakash Singh Badal, Honble Chief Minister of Punjab arrived at Kamarajar Domestic Terminal by IC 540. As he is one of the most highly protected VIPs in India facing threat from Muslim Fundamental Organisations, Sinkh militant organisations, he has been given Z special security rating and a convoy consisting of a pilot vehicle (Car TN 01 3904) a Bullet Proof Car (TSR 3171) two escort vehicles (TN 23 C 2546 and TN 09 H 3796) were placed in the portico at 20.25 hrs. on 111. 2000. Tr. Antony Samy had insisted on the convoy being removed from the portico. Despite protests from the Tr. Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Branch C.I.D., that the Bullet Proof car and the other cars in the convoy have undergone thorough anti-sabotage check and hence cannot be mingled with other cars, he picked up an argument with Tr. 2000. Tr. Antony Samy had insisted on the convoy being removed from the portico. Despite protests from the Tr. Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Branch C.I.D., that the Bullet Proof car and the other cars in the convoy have undergone thorough anti-sabotage check and hence cannot be mingled with other cars, he picked up an argument with Tr. Gopalakrishnan did not listen to reason and had not only insisted on their removal, but in a high handed manner, got the bullet proof car towed to the airport police station with the help of wrecker, thereby endangering the VIP Security. His high handed act in picking up a quarrel with a fellow officer in full public view, lowered the prestige of Tamil Nadu Police in front of other State Officials and visiting public. Because of such towing the bullet proof car No. TSR 3171 incurred damages. Thus, his act resulted in damage to the Government property besides serious breach of security in disabling the use of BP car to a very high risk category VIP. Due to his action in towing the bullet proof car to airport police station, anti-sabotage check could not be conducted once again on the Bullet Proof car and consequently the VIP had to travel in a unsafe car. His action resulted in the Bullet proof car getting damaged in the rear right window glass and the fan belt which was got repaired from ordnance Factory, Medak (A.P.) for an amount of Rs.1,02,682/- vide Invoice No.00003 dated 15. 2001. Thus, he caused financial loss to the Government to a tune of Rs.1,02,682/-. Hence, this charge against this officer Tr. K. Antony Samy, Deputy Superintendent of Police." 4. Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the department as set out in annexure 4 and documents as set out in annexure 3 were marked. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer found that charge No.1 alone is proved and Charge No.2 relating to loss caused due to the vehicle was held not proved. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and an explanation was submitted on 8. 2004. The Government passed the impugned order dated 18. 2005 in G.O.(3D) 95, imposing punishment of censure. 5. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and an explanation was submitted on 8. 2004. The Government passed the impugned order dated 18. 2005 in G.O.(3D) 95, imposing punishment of censure. 5. In this case, the only charge that remains to be considered is the charge relating to the allegation of misbehavior with fellow officer, acting in an high handed manner by removing the Bullet Proof car of the VIP on 111. 2000 despite protest from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and causing damages to the Bullet Proof car and disabled the sanitized bullet proof car. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, while performing his duty as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Airport Security both at the domestic and international terminal, was incharge of the maintenance of free flow traffic at the airport. The petitioner found that on 111. 2000, a pilot vehicle (Car TN 01 3904), a Bullet Proof car (TSR 3171) and two escort vehicles (TN 23C 2546 and TN 09 H 3796) were placed in the portico at 19.35 hours whereas the VIP namely, the Chief Minister of Punjab was scheduled to arrive only at 21.30 hours i.e. 9.30 p.m. The Bullet Proof Car and the security vehicles were parked in the portico nearby the arrival gate and thereby causing great inconvenience to the free flow traffic. According to the petitioner, in addition to the Bullet Proof car, pilot car, escort cars for the above said VIP some more special category vehicles numbering nearly fifteen were parked at the same place as a group because two other VVIPs were scheduled to arrive at the terminal near about that time and on that day. They are Tr. Venkaiah Naidu, Union Minister for Rural Development, who was arrived from Delhi at 20.20 hrs. and Tr. Kakodgar, Chairman, Baba Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, who arrived at 21.15 hours. Since all the special category vehicles were parked at the portico, the petitioner has no other choice but to insist all the security officers incharge and the drivers of the VIP Cars to remove the vehicles and place them at the special zone marked for VVIPS car infront of the airport police station. Since all the special category vehicles were parked at the portico, the petitioner has no other choice but to insist all the security officers incharge and the drivers of the VIP Cars to remove the vehicles and place them at the special zone marked for VVIPS car infront of the airport police station. Inspite of sufficient notice and warning, except the bullet proof car TSR 3171, security cars and pilot cars, meant for the other state Chief Minister the cars belonging to other two VVIPs were removed. Since the Special Officer assigned for security of the Honble Chief Minister of Punjab did not allow his group of vehicles to be removed inspite of sufficient intimation and request, the petitioner arranged for towing the vehicle to the airport police station premises, a special zone so as to secure the vehicle properly. Thereafter, the Bullet Proof Car as above was brought back at the time of arrival of VVIP and the said VVIP travelled in the same Bullet Proof Car and left the airport premises by 9.50 p.m. 7. According to the department, in the incident which happened on 111. 2000 due to the irresponsible and high handed act on the part of the petitioner/delinquent officer, the right side rear glass of the Bullet Proof Car was broken besides other damage. The damage caused was to the tune of Rs.1,02,682/-. The incident in this case happened on 111. 2000 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. In this case, the charge memo under Rule 17B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was served on 10. 2001. The said charge memo was challenged before the Tribunal and quashed and on appeal to this Court, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Tribunal and the enquiry was ordered to be conducted afresh which resulted in the impugned proceedings. 8. The petitioner now challenges the finding of guilt with regard to the first charge stating that the petitioner acted with care and caution and had issued sufficient notice and warning to the security officers and the driver concerned calling upon them to remove the vehicles from the portico stating that the vehicles should not be parked in the portico nearby the arrival gate for more than two minutes and it is a violation of Act, Regulations, Rules and Circulars. 9. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to gazette notification No.13, dated 10. 1982, .(a) Regulation IV deals with the restriction on aircraft vehicles and persons using the airport. .(b) Regulation V deals with prevention of danger to public arising from the use and operation of aircraft and vehicles. .(c) Regulation VI deals with prevention of obstruction within the airport for its normal functioning, which reads as under:- .(1) No person shall obstruct or interfere with the proper use of the airport. .(2) No person shall obstruct any person action in the execution of his duty in relation to the operation of the Airport, including the conveyance of passengers their baggage and other goods and the maintenance and servicing of aircraft. .(3) Without the permission of the competent authority no person shall to the annoyance of any other person sing, dance, shout, play musical instrument or erect any apparatus for transmission, receipt, recording, reproduction or amplification of sound, speech or images. .(4) No person shall organise or take part in any public assembly, demonstration or procession likely to obstruct or interfere with proper use and orderly functioning of the airport or to cause serious public disorder or obstruct or interfere with the comfort, convenience and safety of passengers using the airport. .(5) No person shall without the permission of the competent authority dig soil or cut or remove turf or erect structures temporary or permanent within the airport area. .(6) No person shall without the approval of the competent authority store cargo, drums, cases, building materials, spare parts and other objects outside the places or rooms intended or designated for the purpose. (emphasis supplied) (d). Regulation VII relates to prohibiting or restricting the parking or waiting of any vehicle or carriage within the airports, which reads as follows:- "(1) No person shall without the permission of the General Manager of Airport drive or place a vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for the passage or accommodation for such vehicles. He shall be liable to pay charges at such rates as prescribed by the competent authority for parking of vehicles in such places. He shall be liable to pay charges at such rates as prescribed by the competent authority for parking of vehicles in such places. .(2) No person shall on parts of the airport to which the Motor Vehicles Act does not apply, wait, leave or park a vehicle in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by notice or order. .(3) Any vehicle parked in an unauthorised place, or in excess of the permitted time of the parking, shall be liable to be removed or caused to be removed and stowed away at the expense of the owner without liability for damage thereto arising from or out of such removal or stowage” (emphasis supplied) 10. He also relied upon another circular dated 19.02.1997 issued by the Government of India, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, New Delhi, which reads as follows:- "As per para 11. 29 of Security Manual of ICAO "All vehicles should be kept at least 30 meters away from the frontage of the terminal. Ideally, the forecourt roads should be at lower level, creating a slopping ramp which would act as a blast deflector should a car bomb be detonated. However, this solution usually conflicts with facilitation and design and is therefore not likely to be adopted in most locations. An alternate is to ensure that no short or long term vehicle parking is allowed within 30 meters of the terminal and that the forecourt roads are sufficiently policed to ensure that no unattended or unauthorised vehicle is allowed to be left on them. Efficient response and rapid vehicle removal are required, especially when short-term vehicle parking is permitted at the passenger terminal curbs. The pavement are of the forecourt should have solid bollards placed at intervals or a barrier system to prevent any vehicle from mounting the pavement or entering the terminal. 2. The above precautions are required to be taken keeping in view the effect of an explosion of explosive or incendiary device which may cause damage and casualties within the terminal or to the aircraft parked adjacent to the terminal. Areas accessible to passengers and the public should be designed to facilitate patrols and where explosive or incendiary devices may be concealed. 3. Such explosive devices can be concealed in any vehicle and may cause extensive damage to passengers and employees. Areas accessible to passengers and the public should be designed to facilitate patrols and where explosive or incendiary devices may be concealed. 3. Such explosive devices can be concealed in any vehicle and may cause extensive damage to passengers and employees. It is therefore essential that the parking areas at the airports should be demarcated at least at a distance of 50 meters away from the working area of the terminal building. 4. Vehicles while dropping the departing passengers or collecting the arriving passengers and those used by the visitors to receive and see off the passengers should not be allowed to stay for more than 2 minutes infront of the terminal. Such vehicles should be regulated by the AAI staff / Traffic Police. 5. Vehicles should be parked in the designated parking area only. In case of defaulters strict legal action should be taken. 6. Since the above is one of the items on which directions have been given by the committee on Government Assurance (Lok Sabha), you are requested to please issue necessary directions to all airports for taking immediate action. Report of each airport confirming action on this point may please be sent to the Bureau at the earliest for information to Government." (emphasis supplied). 11. Based on the guidelines issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, circulars have been issued by the airport authorities on 13. 1997 and 13. 1997 calling upon the airport officials to ensure strict compliance of the guidelines in view of the bomb blast that occurred at various places throughout the country. He also referred to Section 78C of the Aircraft Rules 1937, which reads as follows:- "78C. Parking of vehicles at an aerodrome:-(1) No person shall park any vehicle at any Government erodrome other than an aerodrome to which the International Airports Authority Act 1971 (43 of 1971) applied or is made applicable except in a place provided for the parking thereof and except on payment of a fee not exceeding three rupees per vehicle per hour as may be specified by the Director-General from time to time for such parking to the Officer Incharge of the aerodrome or any other person authorised in this behalf by the Director General, by general or special order." 12. According to the counsel for the petitioner, parking of any vehicle should be only in the designated place and not in the manner which has been done in the present case and that only exemption given to the Government Vehicle is to park the vehicle in the parking place without fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the above circular and stated that by no stretch of imagination, the bullet proof car in this case could be allowed to park at the portico from 7.35 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. which is the arrival time of the VVIP. Further more, in addition to the bullet proof car, several other vehicles were parked stating that the visiting dignitary is under the "z" category and all cars are sanitized. In view of the above, the entire portico of the domestic airport was taken over by the cars of the visiting dignitaries thereby, the Act, Regulations, guidelines and the circulars were totally breached. The petitioner having taken necessary steps in conformity with the above said Regulations, Guidelines and circulars, has been punished contending that he has behaved in an high handed manner despite protest from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He refers to the various statements of witnesses to highlight the grievance of the petitioner that he acted in accordance with the Act, Rules, Regulations, Guidelines and Circulars. He did not misbehave as alleged. The charge, finding and punishment are misconceived and an arbitrary action by the department. 13. The first witness Udayakumar, (formerly Inspector of Police, CID Security Branch), now working as Inspector of Police, Security Branch CID, in the enquiry, states that at 8.30 p.m. the delinquent officer told H.C.7970 Chandrasekar, driver of Bullet Proof Car to take away the vehicle parked in the portico of airport. It is also stated that the driver inturn informed to Thiru. Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Branch CID, the person incharge. He also states that the petitioner informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to ensure that the vehicles are taken away. The reply of Deputy Superintendent of Police was that the vehicles were for the visiting dignitary viz., Chief Minister of Punjab. The vehicles were subjected to anti-sabotage check sanitized and therefore, it cannot be removed from the portico as it will be difficult to re-arrange the vehicle. The reply of Deputy Superintendent of Police was that the vehicles were for the visiting dignitary viz., Chief Minister of Punjab. The vehicles were subjected to anti-sabotage check sanitized and therefore, it cannot be removed from the portico as it will be difficult to re-arrange the vehicle. The petitioner did not agree with the said stand and since the officer did not remove the vehicle, he arranged for an airport wrecker vehicle and brought the bullet proof car to the airport police station at 20.40 hours i.e. 8.40 p.m. Thereafter, after some discussion with other officers, the car was brought back to the airport portico at 9.10 p.m. and the V.I.P. arrived at 9.35 p.m. and left the airport at 9.50 p.m. in the same bullet proof car. In the cross examination, the said Udayakumar stated that along with the bullet proof car, five vehicles will surrounding it. He also stated about the damage to the bullet proof car and that other convoy of vehicles parked at the portico to receive several VIPs. 14. From the evidence of Udayakumar, it is clear that the incident namely dialogue between officers happened at about 8.30 hours. Three VIPs were about to arrive at about that time and all the VIP vehicles were parked at the portico along with the escort and convoy vehicles. He stated that a large number of cars were parked infront of the domestic airport between 8.30 p.m. and 9.50 p.m. on 111. 2000. 15. The next witness P.W.2, Chandrasekaran, Security Branch CID, who is the driver of Bullet Proof Car designated for the Chief Minister of Punjab, states that he arrived at the airport driving the Bullet Proof Car TSR 3171 at 19.35 hours i.e. 7.35 p.m. From his evidence in chief, there is no doubt that the bullet proof car was parked at the portico of the domestic terminal at 19.35 hours i.e. 7.35 p.m. whereas the scheduled arrival time of the V.V.I.P. was 21.30 hours i.e. 9.30 p.m. The bullet proof car was parked two hours ( 2 hours) before the arrival of VVIP. He states that anti-sabotage check was done to the vehicle and at 20.30 hours, the Assistant Commissioner of Police insisted on removal of the bullet proof car. He states that anti-sabotage check was done to the vehicle and at 20.30 hours, the Assistant Commissioner of Police insisted on removal of the bullet proof car. He confirms that the vehicle was towed away to the police station zone and that the same bullet proof car was used by the VVIP on his arrival. In his cross-examination, he clearly admits that the bullet proof car was parked at 19.35 hours in the portico even though the scheduled time of arrival of VVIP was at 9.30 p.m. He also admits that his convoy had nine vehicles. He confirms that he parked the vehicle infront of the arrival gate. From the evidence of the driver of the bullet proof car, it is clear that nine vehicles were parked in the portico of the arrival gate of the domestic airport at about 7.30 p.m. on 111. 2000. 16. P.W.3 ,Thiru V.K. Surendranath, Escot Officer, Inspector of Police, confirms that he arrived at 19.35 hours to provide anti-sabotage check. He states that he was at Chennai City Traffic Police nearly 14 years. He clearly admits that the car was parked at the left side of the portico and that the issue relating to the parking of the vehicle was raised by the petitioner at 8.15 p.m. He confirms that VVIP had arrived at 9.30 p.m. and left the airport at 9.50 p.m. In cross examination, he states that except the bullet proof car and the convoy vehicles, there was no other vehicle. He however states that he did not know that the bullet proof car was towed away from the portico zone. He confirms that the airport premises is under the control of airport authority of India. He further states that he did not know that there is a restriction of two minutes for parking of the vehicle at the portico to drop and pickup the passengers. From the cross examination of Surendranath, it is clear that the bullet proof car and the convoy vehicles were parked at the portico for long hours, which admittedly is a tow away zone. The witness is unaware of the regulation and has worked in the city traffic police for 14 years. He confirms that in the portico, the vehicles of two other VIPs were kept parked. 17. The witness is unaware of the regulation and has worked in the city traffic police for 14 years. He confirms that in the portico, the vehicles of two other VIPs were kept parked. 17. P.W.4, G. Devaraj, Sub Inspector of Police, (Traffic) J2, Adyar Police Station, Chennai, states that the officers of the airport authorities and security informed them that the vehicles of VVIP should be brought to the portico only half-an-hour before the arrival of the VVIP. The evidence of other witnesses is also to the same effect and they have in their cross examination clearly stated about the incident as narrated above. From this, it is clear that the bullet proof car the convoy vehicles and escort vehicles were parked in the portico in the front of the arrival gate of the domestic airport at 7.35 p.m. i.e. two hours before the arrival of the VVIP. On going through the regulations and guidelines issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and the circulars issued thereafter, it is clear that the vehicles in this case ought not to have been parked in the portico for such a long time. It will be opposed to Regulations, the guidelines and circulars issued for maintaining the high level of security at the airport. 18. P.W.9, Suriaprasad, I.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police, stated about the damages caused to the vehicle and the loss incurred and he relied upon certain exhibits. In the course of cross examination, he stated that the Chief Minister of Punjab is coming under the "Z+" category VIP and therefore, the Civil Aviation Circular regarding the declaration of portico as a "tow away" zone is not applicable. 19. The Government Advocate was asked to produce any record or proceedings with regard to security given to the "Z+" category VIPs. on the above above basis. A Chief Office memo was shown to this Court and it states as follows:- "The persons entitled for Z+ scale of security are being provided with the following security arrangements: Six Personal security officers, two at a time. One with 9mm pistol and other with automatic weapon (sten). (ii) Sufficient number of uniformed static guards at residence and office. (iii) Two escorts of 1:3 each in three shifts. .(iv) Two watchers during day and one during night. .(V) Provision of a Bullet Proof Car, if available. One with 9mm pistol and other with automatic weapon (sten). (ii) Sufficient number of uniformed static guards at residence and office. (iii) Two escorts of 1:3 each in three shifts. .(iv) Two watchers during day and one during night. .(V) Provision of a Bullet Proof Car, if available. If Bullet Proof car is not available, Escort-III is being provided. (Vi) One Inspector/SI should be incharge of security arrangements round the clock. (Vii) Perimeter wall and fencing of sufficient height. (Viii) Adequate perimeter lighting. (Xi) Access control measures like searching, frisking, screening and communication staff-two at a time including a lady officer in 3 shifts round the clock. (X) Area security around residence and office. Besides, regular and through anti-sabotage checks at the places of stay/ office and venues of function to be attended to by the protectees should be carried out by trained police/ security personnel by visual means and with the help of technical equipment and sniffer dogs, depending on availability. Some protectees in the Z Special category may also require Ring Round (RR) teams at the venues of public function, depending on the local threat perception. Further Photo identity Cards should be made mandatory for all personnel/ household staff at office or residence of Z Special category of protectees. The security inside the airport is being provided by the CISF authorities. We do not have any report on security arrangements made inside the airport. " .20. Further, the Superintendent of Police as stated in SCA.8.No.8179-1/C/09, dated 7. 2009. ."It is to be informed that there is no specific guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to parking of vehicles outside the airport by Z+ category VIPs/Protectees." 21. In other words, the security regulations, guidelines and circulars as to existed in the airport then alone will cover the case on hand. A specific questions were made with regard to various restrictions contained in the regulations as per the gazette notification dated 10. 1982. The reply of the senior police officer is vague and evasive. .22. The only contention of the Department appears to be that the delinquent officer argued with security personnel and towed away the bullet proof car much against the warning issued by the senior officer and security personnel deputed to the visiting dignitary. 1982. The reply of the senior police officer is vague and evasive. .22. The only contention of the Department appears to be that the delinquent officer argued with security personnel and towed away the bullet proof car much against the warning issued by the senior officer and security personnel deputed to the visiting dignitary. From the charge memo and the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, there is no reference to any Act, Rule, Regulations or circular, which has been breached by the petitioner on his part on 111. 2000. On the other hand, the petitioner has scrupulously followed the Act, regulations, guidelines and circulars issued by the Government of India from time to time. The evidence of witnesses support the case of petitioner that incident started at 7.30 p.m. and continued till removal of the vehicle. 23. Considering the security of airport and the security threat alert in view of the bomb blast which occurred all over the country during the relevant time, the Government of India placed several restrictions with regard to the use of the airport. The regulations, guidelines, circulars deal with parking of the vehicles infront of the airport terminal and has to be strictly followed. It is self explanatory. The Petitioner therefore, cannot be found fault with for acting in public interest and in accordance with the Act, Regulations, guidelines and circulars. He provides safety and security to one and all including the "Z+" category VIPs. If at all, the department wanted to provide anti-sabotage check, it could have been done at the airport police station premises and it is not disputed that there is sufficient place to do so. .24. Having noticed the facts as above, let us look into the finding of the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer is at para "E" of the report is that the delinquent officer contended that he acted as per rules prescribed by airport authority in regulating vehicular traffic at the portico. The enquiry officer states that the arguments and contention of the delinquent officer is hundred percent correct technically. The enquiry officer, thereafter goes on to say that the petitioner should not work as a traffic sergeant. He should act responsibly and take care of the security needs for VIPs and VVIPs, who land and depart frequently. The enquiry officer states that the arguments and contention of the delinquent officer is hundred percent correct technically. The enquiry officer, thereafter goes on to say that the petitioner should not work as a traffic sergeant. He should act responsibly and take care of the security needs for VIPs and VVIPs, who land and depart frequently. The officer accepts that the parking Rules apply to the portico area also but when it comes to VVIPs, they take priority over general rule as far as security is concerned. Unfortunately, the enquiry officer is unable to show any specific Rule, Regulation and Guideline which enables the cars of VVIP and "Z" category persons are entitled to special treatment and can be allowed to be parked in the portico of the airport terminal. It is unfortunate that the enquiry officer has forgotten that the regulations of the year 1982 and the guidelines issued in the year 1997 clearly set out the reasons for strict enforcement of the Regulations and guidelines in order to protect the airport premises from any untoward incident including bomb blast. The officers of the police department should be well aware that such regulations, rules or guidelines are issued for strict compliance and there can be no breach in the name of VVIP security. The safety and security of the airport, a public property cannot be compromised in the name of VVIP security. The enquiry officer unfortunately inspite of it being brought to his knowledge has failed to understand the reason behind the gazette notification of the year 1982 and the regulations issued in 1997. He has come to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner acted in an high handed manner without any basis. It is also unfortunate to note that many of the witnesses, who have been in the traffic regulations and security wing of the police department, do not know that the portico is a "tow away" zone and is not meant for parking vehicles beyond the period prescribed. How can one expect a common man in this democratic country to obey the Rules and Regulations if such an explanation is given by the responsible officer, who breach the regulations and guidelines in the name of VIP Security. .25. How can one expect a common man in this democratic country to obey the Rules and Regulations if such an explanation is given by the responsible officer, who breach the regulations and guidelines in the name of VIP Security. .25. The Government while confirming the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to the first charge which is the only one issue before this Court, has come to the conclusion that the delinquent officer/petitioner should have called upon the senior officer in case of any doubt and he should not have towed away the sanitized bullet proof car in view of the protest by the security officer. According to the Government, it is an high handed action on the part of the petitioner and it caused serious breach of security to the VVIP. This finding is a clear misunderstanding of the entire issue. The witnesses clearly stated that the petitioner informed the security officer and the driver that the vehicles should not be parked at the portico and should be taken away to the police station premises and brought to the portico at the time of arrival of the VVIP. This request made by the petitioner has been ignored by the security officer which resulted in the petitioner to take the extreme step of towing the vehicle. In fact, the vehicle of other VIPs were removed. If the petitioner allowed the vehicle to be parked as insisted, he will have acted contrary to the Rules, Regulations and guidelines. The petitioner cannot be faulted for acting in consonance with the Act, Rules and Regulations. It is unfortunate that the breach is alleged on the petitioner, an officer, who did his duty to maintain security and free flow of traffic at the airport. He is made to face an unnecessary proceedings before the Department for no fault. The court is at pains to state that in the name of VVIP security, the security of the nation and the safety of property of the State cannot be jeopardize. It is not the fault of the VVIP as he is unaware of the happenings. It is the persons concerned, who think and act as the adage goes., " more loyal than the king". This over zealous action cause security breach and unwanted friction. It is not the fault of the VVIP as he is unaware of the happenings. It is the persons concerned, who think and act as the adage goes., " more loyal than the king". This over zealous action cause security breach and unwanted friction. From the statement of all the witnesses in chief and in cross examination and in the absence of any specific rules and regulations to the contrary, the action of the department against the petitioner is totally misconceived, irresponsible and arbitrary. It is also without application of mind to the Act, Rules, Regulations, guidelines and circulars referred to above. .26. The charge No.2, which has been already dropped relates to causing loss to the bullet proof car of the VVIP. Certain documents were relied upon for the purpose of establishing the case that the damage was caused to the vehicle while towing. From the enquiry officers report, it comes to light that the vehicle was not actually repaired as per the document produced. The said charge was supported by unreliable documents, which shows the over anxiety on the part of the department to frame one or other charges on the petitioner. Still worse, when the charge itself is dropped, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that loss is caused by the petitioner is established. It is evident from the paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- ."It is submitted that the action of the petitioner resulted in the bullet proof car getting damaged in the rear right window glass and the fan belt, which was got repaired from the Ordnance Factory, Medak (A.P.) for an amount of Rs.1,02,682/-. Thus the petitioner had also caused financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,02,682/-. " 27. The carelessness in filing such a counter affidavit without considering the actual facts should be avoided as it will tend to mislead the Court and cause miscarriage of justice. When the charge itself is dropped, the counter affidavit should contain the material which is relevant to the case on hand. This Court therefore comes to the conclusion as follows:- .(i) The charge against the petitioner that he acted in an high handed and irresponsible manner is not proved by the witnesses on record. When the charge itself is dropped, the counter affidavit should contain the material which is relevant to the case on hand. This Court therefore comes to the conclusion as follows:- .(i) The charge against the petitioner that he acted in an high handed and irresponsible manner is not proved by the witnesses on record. On the contrary, the witnesses in their statement in chief and cross examination clearly supports the case of the petitioner that the bullet proof car was parked at 7.35 p.m. i.e. two hours before the arrival of the VVIP and thereby they breached the Act, Rules, Regulations and Guidelines. .(ii) The petitioner had given sufficient warning to the authorities and the driver of the car to remove the vehicle and park it at the airport police station premises and the authorities failed to do so. (iii) The petitioner acted in accordance with the Act, Rules, Regulations as contained in the gazette notification dated 110. 1982 and the circular dated 12. 1997 and other circulars issued thereafter. .(iv) The conduct of the petitioner is totally within the frame work of the law and he has not breached the Act, Rules, regulations or the Circulars. The finding of the guilt in respect of charge No.1, therefore stands not proved. The Government Order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. .(v) The officers of the various police and security department have to take into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time with regard to the security regulations at places like the airport, railway station etc. .(vi) The petitioner, consequent to the charge memo, suffered due to non promotion and lost service benefits. The action taken by the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of the law and he should not suffer for no fault of his. He will be entitled to all consequential service benefits if it is denied. (vii) Since there is no breach of law on the part of the petitioner and when it is accepted that his action is technically correct, he should not have been subjected to unnecessary departmental and legal proceedings by the respondent. This Court feels it just that cost should be imposed. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000/-is imposed as costs to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. 28. This writ petition is allowed on the above terms.