Judgment The petitioner was working as a Head Constable. He filed O.A.No.7125 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order dated 05.01.1998 passed by the second respondent Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 2. By the said order, the petitioner was imposed with the recovery of Rs.15,000/-. The order came to be passed on the ground that when the petitioner was working in Ambiligai Police Station in Dindigul Circle, one Chinnan @ Muthan @ Muthuchamy s/o Subbu Kurumban was brought to the police lock up for interrogation. He died in police custody on 08.01.1992 under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, on an appeal from the family, the Honble Chief Minister from his Public Relief Fund sanctioned a sum of Rs.1 lakh on condition that the amount should be recovered from the staff concerned who were manning the police station. The said order was issued in G.O.No.587 Public (Law and Order) dated 08.06.1996. 3. Thereafter, one Mohan, Grade-I Police Constable, who was also responsible to make good the amount died. Therefore, the Government issued an amendment in G.O.No.1411 Public (Law and Order) dated 07.04.1997, wherein it was stated that recovery of amount from Mohan was waived and the balance amount of Rs.85,000/- will have to be recovered on the following ratio: i) Inspector 30%, ii)Sub-Inspector 25% iii)Grade I Constable (petitioner) 15% and iv) Constable 15%. It was directed that the said amount should be recovered on monthly basis in 30 instalments at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 4. Pending the Original Application, the Tribunal, by an order dated 01.07.1998 granted interim stay. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent had filed a reply affidavit dated 012. 1998. 5. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.34155 of 2006. 6. The learned Government Advocate had also circulated the original file maintained by the department. 7. In the present case, a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D & A) Rules was given to the police personnel for having caused the death of one accused Chinnan in the police lock up. The petitioner was accused of being highly reprehensible in his conduct of wrongful detention of Chinnan in the police station from 05.01.92 till his death on 1. 92 and using excessive force which caused injuries, resulting in his death. The petitioner was accused of being highly reprehensible in his conduct of wrongful detention of Chinnan in the police station from 05.01.92 till his death on 1. 92 and using excessive force which caused injuries, resulting in his death. Though the second charge was not proved by the Enquiry Officer, the first charge was held proved. 8. The petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. The contention raised by the petitioner that he was not heard by the State cannot be accepted. For the proved misconduct, which itself is a serious misconduct the petitioner was let off with a minor penalty and that order became final. The contention that they need not pay the liability caused to the Government cannot be accepted. When once in the departmental enquiry, the petitioners role in the incident has been proved and that order has become final, further consequences of making good the loss sustained by the Government is automatic. The conduct exhibited by the petitioner, namely, detaining a person unlawfully in the lock up for more than three days and where the detenu also subsequently died cannot be condoned. 9. The action of the petitioner is in clear conflict with the dictum of the Supreme Court laid in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. In that case, the Supreme Court had categorically held that in case of any violation of the guidelines laid down therein, which included a civilised treatment in police lockups, compensation can be ordered and amounts can be recovered from the concerned Government Servants. The Court has also further directed that even contempt proceedings can be initiated against such police personnel who are responsible for committing such custodial tortures. 10. In the present case, it is not as if the petitioner was never heard. On the contrary for the very same charge, he has been imposed with a penalty which became final. 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.