Judgment Heard both sides. The petitioner, who was working as a Sub Inspector of Police at Thiruvarur District, filed O.A.No.6774 of 1998, seeking to set aside the order, dated 4. 1997 passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the second respondent vide order dated 22. 1998. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 2. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 28. 1998 granted an interim stay of impugned penalty on the ground that the appellate authority did not discuss about the adequacy of penalty. The said interim order came to be continued until further orders. 3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated 11. 1998. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.33782 of 2006. this Court directed the original records to be produced. Accordingly, original records were produced by the learned Government Advocate and circulated. 4. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that since memo was given under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the punishment imposed consequently was valid. With reference to the defence taken that there was another Sub Inspector of Police, Crimes who was in-charge of crime and he did not take proper steps cannot be accepted. In paragraph 6 of the reply affidavit, it was averred as follows: "6....The occurrence of criminal case in Vedaranyam PS. Cr.No.629/95 u/s 379 IPC was not prevented and investigated by the applicant as expected from a Law and Order Officer. Hence, on this ground, the contention of the applicant is not sustainable. It is also submitted that the contention of the applicant that there was another Sub-Inspector of Police, Crimes who was incharge of Crime who was on special duty and hence the applicant was looking after the case is not sustainable. Because as the incharge official he holds full responsibility for the offences in his jurisdiction. Though the applicant was on holiday permission on the date of occurrence, subsequently he did not take up investigation. The investigation was taken up by HC.518, accused arrested, and properties recovered in the connected case. Hence, the contention of the applicant that he took up investigation is not sustainable...." 5. In the original file, there is nothing to exonerate him. Though the applicant was on holiday permission on the date of occurrence, subsequently he did not take up investigation. The investigation was taken up by HC.518, accused arrested, and properties recovered in the connected case. Hence, the contention of the applicant that he took up investigation is not sustainable...." 5. In the original file, there is nothing to exonerate him. It was stated that the authority had passed the order in accepting the enquiry officers report and has made an appropriate endorsement on the file. Even the appellate authority briefly held that charges are proved and the petitioners explanation was not acceptable. It is in that view of the matter, final order was passed. There is no scope for interfering with the impugned order. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.