Judgment The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect passed by the third respondent in his proceeding dated 13. 1996 and the consequential order of modified punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect passed by the second respondent by his order dated 17. 1997, confirmed in review by the first respondent by order dated 12. 1998 and pay all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the Police Service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 11. 1979 and promoted as Inspector of Police on 11. 1993. On 19. 1994, a charge memo was issued in PR.No.127/94 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range. The charges framed against the petitioner was as follows: "(1) Gross dereliction of duty in failure to register a case u/s.336 and 427 IPC on the complaint of one Dhamodaran of Bandarapalli and taking lenient action against accused Thirupathi @ Pattesan and Mohan by registering cases against them in Natrampalli P.S. Cr.No.650 and 651/93 u/s.41(1) Cr.P.C. instead of u/s.336 and 427 IPC and allowing the S.I. to arrest the accused Ramalingam and Munirathinam in Natrampalli P.S. Cr.No.648/93 u/s.379 IPC. (2) Gross dereliction of duty in failure to interrogate the accused persons Thirupathi @ Pattesan, S/o.Somaiyan @ Chinnathambi (2) Ramalingam, S/o.Lingam @ Mallanooran, (3) Mohan, S/o.Devan @ Devaraj and (4) Munirathinam @ Samannan, S/o.Munusamy on 212. 93 when they were produced before the delinquent." The said charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. 3. The Enquiry Officer held that both the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and having regard to the nature of the charges, imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Petitioner filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police and by order dated 17. 1997, the said punishment was modified by taking a lenient view and imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect. The review filed by the petitioner against that order of punishment was rejected by order dated 12. 1998. 4. Petitioner filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police and by order dated 17. 1997, the said punishment was modified by taking a lenient view and imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for six months without cumulative effect. The review filed by the petitioner against that order of punishment was rejected by order dated 12. 1998. 4. The charges having been framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and the same having been found proved in the enquiry conducted by strictly adhering the procedures contemplated, it is the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to impose the punishment. Ordinarily the Courts will not interfere in such order of punishment, unless procedural lapses are pointed out in the decision making process. 5. Here in this case, the appellate authority has taken a lenient view by modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that there is no procedural violation in the conduct of enquiry. In view of such undisputed facts, the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be interfered with. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.