Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.2727 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable in 1985. On 04.09.2001, the petitioner and two other Police Constables, namely, Mr.Sivadass and Mr.Angamuthu were allotted the duty of escorting five accused persons from the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani to Madurai Central Jail. One of the accused namely Mr.Sakthivel, suddenly removed his hand from the handcuffs and ran away at about 10.15 p.m., when they were waiting at Arapalayam, for the city bus. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo making the following two allegations. A similar charge memo was issued to the other two persons referred to above. TAMIL 3. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. In the enquiry against the other two persons also, they were found guilty of the charges. The petitioner and two others were removed from service by the first respondent, by an order dated 28.02.2002. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 14.03.2002 before the second respondent and the same was dismissed by the second respondent by an order dated 26.03.2002. 5. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.2727 of 2002 (W.P.No.36717 of 2005) praying to quash the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2002 of the second respondent, confirming the order of the first respondent dated 28.02.2002. 6. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 12.04.2006 in W.P.No.38119 of 2005 in respect of the order of the removal Mr.Sivadass, who was one among the three persons, entrusted with the work of escorting the accused persons. In the said order, this court, set aside the removal order and remanded the matter back to the second respondent. Para-2 of the said order is extracted here-under. "Though the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, no charges have been framed for the allegation for which the Appellate Authority had confirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed by the 2nd respondent. That apart, in the appeal, the petitioner had specifically mentioned since the structure of the accused, who had escaped was very lean, he was able to remove the handcuff and escape. That apart, in the appeal, the petitioner had specifically mentioned since the structure of the accused, who had escaped was very lean, he was able to remove the handcuff and escape. According to the petitioner, the escape of the prisoner was not due to illegal intention on the part of the petitioner. That apart, according to the petitioner, this is an incident, which took place at 22.15 hours and he had taken all efforts to trace the accused and in spite of his efforts, he could not trace him. Consequently, having no other alternative, on the very next day, at early hours, he had lodged a complaint in this regard. Basing on this, the petitioner had given reason why the order of transfer passed by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable. Further, the petitioner had served for a period of 17 years without any complaint and this is the first incident in his 17 years of service. Without taking into consideration all these aspects, on a different allegation, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. As such, I am of the opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the 1st respondent to examine the same with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner and taking into consideration the defence put forward by the petitioner in the appeal and thereafter, pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No Costs." 8. In the case of Mr.Angamuthu also, it is stated that his removal order is set aside by this Court on the same lines. It is further stated that the order of this Court was implemented and they were imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 9. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent, to consider the matter afresh, in the light of the order dated 12.04.2006 made in W.P.No.38119 of 2005, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.