Judgment The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner i.e. the reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect to be spent on duty. 2. The petitioner who was working as a Grade II Police Constable was issued with a charge memo in P.R.No.288 of 1995 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The charges reads as follows: "For gross dereliction in duty and found absent for duty at 16.25 hrs. From the beat duty assigned to him on 19. 1995 at 1400 hrs. to 1800 hrs. at Devar Statue while checked up the beat point by R.I., Traffic Theppakulam. ii) For his insubordination in having failed to pay respect to his superior and talked in disrespectful manner, and iii) refused to handover his note book at the police station when demanded by HC.368 Paulraj so as to make entry regarding return from duty." Enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found that the charges are held proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the above punishment. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Inspector general of Police and Commissioner of Police, Madurai, was rejected on 16. 1998 and the Review Petition filed before the Director General of Police was also dismissed on 210. 1998. 3. The said order of punishment is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that charge No.2 is vague and no specific insubordination, the date and the officer against whom the petitioner was held insubordinate is not stated and therefore the punishment cannot be sustained. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. From the perusal of the charges, it is evident that the first charge is specific, i.e. gross dereliction in duty and found absent for duty at 16.25 hrs. from the beat duty assigned to him on 19. 1995 at 1400 hrs. to 1800 hrs. at Devar Statue while checked up the beat point by R.I., Traffic Theppakulam. Charge No.3 is also specific by stating that the petitioner refused to handover the Handbook at the Police station when demanded by Head Constable No.368 Paulraj so as to make entries regarding return from duty. 6. 1995 at 1400 hrs. to 1800 hrs. at Devar Statue while checked up the beat point by R.I., Traffic Theppakulam. Charge No.3 is also specific by stating that the petitioner refused to handover the Handbook at the Police station when demanded by Head Constable No.368 Paulraj so as to make entries regarding return from duty. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that all the procedure for conducting enquiry were followed and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Having regard to the fact that there is no procedural violation during the decision making process, the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority cannot be found fault with. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.