Judgment :- The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Airport Security, Meenambakkam. A charge memo under Rule 3 (b) was framed against the petitioner containing three charges. The first charge was that the petitioner received cash of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant K. Manivannan to register a case in Ambattur PS Crime No. 1706 of 2004 under Section 380 of IPC on 26.08.1994. The second charge was in respect of gross negligence of duty in not registering a case under Section 182 of Cr.P.C. for seizure of Hero Honda Motor Cycle and handing over to Ashok Nagar Police Station for showing recovery in Ashok Nagar P.S. Cr.No. 213 of 1995 under Section 457 & 380 IPC registered on 23.02.1995. The third charge relates to gross neglect of duty in not registering a cycle accident case occurred on 19.01.1995 and registering the case on 08.03.1995 in Ambattur P.S. Cr.No. 187 of 1995 under Section 279 & 377 IPC after a lapse of 48 days and failure to register a robbery case on 07.03.1995 on the report given by one Muthukrishnan. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poonamallee Sub-Division was appointed as an enquiry officer, who, after conducting enquiry found that the petitioner was guilty of the first misconduct. With reference to second and third charges, not guilty report was furnished. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpet Range, accepting the report of the enquiry officer ordered for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service from the date of the order namely 15.04.1997. The petitioner filed statutory appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent, gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner with reference to demand of Rs.1,000/-as bribe for registering a case under Section 380 of IPC on the ground that there was an enormous delay in making such allegations as the delay was one year and there was no corroborating evidence to support receipt of money. The first respondent, gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner with reference to demand of Rs.1,000/-as bribe for registering a case under Section 380 of IPC on the ground that there was an enormous delay in making such allegations as the delay was one year and there was no corroborating evidence to support receipt of money. With reference to delay in registering the FIR on the allegation of theft, there was 45 days of delay and the reason adduced by the petitioner was not acceptable to the appellate authority and therefore, in view of the same and on considering the fact that the petitioner had put in long number of years of service namely 28 years and the family circumstance of having three children, one sister and aged mother and the petitioner being the sole bread winner, the appellate authority was convinced that the order of compulsory retirement as penalty was excessive and therefore taking into account of the said circumstances modified the punishment into one of reduction in time scale of pay by four stages for four years with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the said modified punishment before the Tribunal. On notice from the Tribunal, the second respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 31.03.1999. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as WP No. 24033 of 2006. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents produced the original files from the appellate authority for perusal of this Court. 4. In the reply affidavit dated 31.03.1999 of the second respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner relating to the procedural aspect of the enquiry were totally denied. With reference to modification of punishment, in para No.7 of the reply affidavit, it has been averred as follows:- "7. It is also denied that the applicant was subjected to the enquiry without reasonable opportunity. It is nothing but a figment of imagination that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement without proper appreciation of facts and evidence of the case. In fact every point discussed by the enquiry officer was carefully gone through by the punishing authority and only after he had satisfied himself that the enquiry officer has held the charges against the applicant as proved based on the statements of witnesses and documentary evidences, the punishing authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. In fact every point discussed by the enquiry officer was carefully gone through by the punishing authority and only after he had satisfied himself that the enquiry officer has held the charges against the applicant as proved based on the statements of witnesses and documentary evidences, the punishing authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The appellate authority (first respondent) has observed that the allegations were levelled against the applicant by the complainant viz., Manivannan after a delay of one year and in view of the abnormal delay, he had to take a judicious view. Hence the appellate authority modified the punishment into that of reduction in the time scale of pay by four stages for four years with cumulative effect. It is to be noted that the appellate authority was not at all satisfied with the submissions made by the applicant, in his appeal petition. His appeal petition was sympathetically considered in view of the fact that the applicant had stated that he was the only bread winner of the family having three children, an aged mother and a sister to be looked after. The applicant deserved by the second respondent for such a grave delinquencies of demand and acceptance of money from the complainant for registering a case of theft." 5. Mr. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by four stages with cumulative causes great hardship to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. This is not a case of no evidence. On the contrary, the appellate authority, though gave benefit of doubt with reference to acceptance of Rs.1,000/-as bribe for registering the criminal case under Section 380 of IPC, yet found there was inordinate delay in registering an FIR. 6. Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court emphasised, including in the latest decision reported in (Praveen Bhatia vs. Union of India and Others) 2009 4 SCC 225 that judicial review over imposition of penalty by the departmental authorities is extremely limited and the Court can interfere only when the relevant factors were not taken note of by the authorities. In this case, this Court do not see that the appellate authority has failed to consider any relevant factors before imposing the modified punishment on the petitioner. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.