Judgment Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings C.No.AP.3 (1)/35864/2005, dated 16.04.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows: (i) Petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 24.05.1999. On completion of training he was posted to Tamilnadu Special Police XIth Battalion, Rajapalayam with effect from 09.03.2000. (ii) Petitioner was on guard duty on 012. 2003 in Battalion office in rented building in Door No.258/1, Tenkasi Road, Rajapalayam. The guard party was consisting of Petitioner (Guard Commander) and R.Ramakrishna (Guard waiting PC) and three others. Petitioner was on guard duty from 21.00 hrs to 23.00 hrs, the 7.62mm bolt action rifle butt No.548, body No.Y.0546 of the sentry PC fixed with bayonet and scabbard was found missing. On complaint lodged by Officer Commanding Headquarters, case in Crime No.636/2003 u/s.379 IPC on the file of Rajapalayam South Police Station was registered and the case was investigated by Raman, Sub-Inspector of Police (Law&Order). (iii) By the Proceedings of the 4th Respondent in B.O.No.688/2003, in C.No.D1/10805/2003 dated 112. 2003, the Petitioner along with all other guard personnel were placed under suspension with effect from 012. 2003 FN. Petitioner was dealt with charge in P.R.28/2003 u/r 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Ordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 for the delinquencies (i)Gross neglect of duty in having absent from guard duty from 21.00 hours to 01.00 hours on 012. 2003 and in having gone out with guard commander; (ii)Gross neglect of duty and lethargic attitude in having failed to exercise proper supervision and control over the guard PCS on 012. 2003 as a guard commander; (iii)Gross neglect of duty and slack supervision over the duty of sentry PC 422 Kanimurugan from 21.00 hrs to 23.00 hrs on 012. 2003 which resulted in the theft of rifle Butt No.548 body No.Y 0546 possessed by PC 422 Kanimurugan while on sentry duty.; (iv) Gross neglect of duty in having failed to inform the theft of rifle to the superiors and thus shirked his responsibility; (v) highly reprehensible conduct in having given false information to the Adjutant Inspector during enquiry on 012. 2003 that the was available at the Battalion office at the time of occurrence. (iv)Oral enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was given all opportunities to defend himself during the oral enquiry. On a proved minute drawn by Assistant Commandant 1, TSP XI Battalion, the Petitioner was awarded with the punishment of "Removal from service" from the date of order by the 4th Respondent, Commandant, TSP XI Bn. Rajapalayam on 23.04.2004. (v) Aggrieved, Petitioner has preferred appeal before the 3rd Respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police by proceedings in A2/Appeal.22/04 dated 03.07.2004. 3rd Respondent rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. Review petition filed by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent Inspector General of Police, Armed Police was also rejected. Mercy petition filed by the Petitioner was also rejected by the 1st Respondent-Director General of Police, Chennai in proceedings C.No.Ap3(1)/35864/05 dated 16.04.2005. Challenging the order of 1st Respondent, Petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Resisting the Petition, Respondents have filed counter stating that the delinquencies committed by the Writ Petitioner is serious in nature and the punishment of removal from service is commensurate with the gravity of the delinquency committed by the Petitioner. It is further averred that the stolen rifle has been recovered only on 06. 2005 by the local police and the said case is now pending trial before Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. Writ Petitioner being nominated as controlling and supervising authority of an armed guard has duty bound to be vigilant in the area where he has been deployed. Further case of the Respondent that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is just and reasonable. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.A.R.Nixon, contended that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on Petitioner is disproportionate. It was further contended that Petitioner cannot be made liable for the loss of pistol and knife belonging to Police Constable Kani Murugan, which is a personal negligence attributed to that particular individual Police Constable Kani Murugan. 5. Learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, submitted that being Police personnel the writ petitioner was expected to maintain discipline and having regard to nature of misconduct the punishment imposed is reasonable and cannot be said to be harsh. 6. In his explanation to the charges Petitioner had taken defence that only Kanimurugan was in charge of the rifle. 5. Learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, submitted that being Police personnel the writ petitioner was expected to maintain discipline and having regard to nature of misconduct the punishment imposed is reasonable and cannot be said to be harsh. 6. In his explanation to the charges Petitioner had taken defence that only Kanimurugan was in charge of the rifle. According to writ petitioner he was not well and that guard waiting PC Ramakrishnan had taken him to hospital and during such absence rifle was found to be missing and there was no negligence on his part in attending the duty. 7. Charges were also framed against the said Kani Murugan and he was also imposed punishment of dismissal from service. In W.P.(MD).No.9121 of 2006 filed by the said Kani Murugan by the order dated 09.05.2007, Justice K.Suguna modified the punishment of dismissal from service as stoppage of increment for seven years with cumulative effect. In the writ appeal preferred against the said order in W.A. (MD).No.658 of 2007, Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order of learned single Judge and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal filed by Kani Murugan. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority – Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police had sympathetically considered the case of Kani Murugan and Kani Murugan was ordered to be reinstated. Kani Murugan who was found responsible for the loss of pistol and knife was ordered to be reinstated. In W.P.No.40260/2005 this court has set aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the case of Ramakrishnan on par with PC Kanimurugan. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Appellate Authority sympathetically considered the case of PC Ramakrishnan and the said Ramakrishnan was ordered to be reinstated. The writ petitioner is also on similar footing. 10. The impugned proceedings C.No.Ap.3(1)/35864/2005, dated 16.04.2005, imposing punishment of removal from service upon the Petitioner is set aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: "In the light of above observations and referring to the judgment passed in the case of Kani Murugan the writ petitioner shall file a fresh appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: "In the light of above observations and referring to the judgment passed in the case of Kani Murugan the writ petitioner shall file a fresh appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "On such appeal being filed the Respondents shall reconsider the appeal preferred by writ petitioner preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the appeal. "Case of writ petitioner shall also be considered by Appellate Authority on par with guard waiting Police Constable R.Ramakrishnan. "If the writ petitioner is further aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Authority it shall be open to the writ petitioner to pursue his remedy.