Judgment :- The present writ petitioner, P. Jeevagan, while working as a Ex.Grade-I Police Constable, was issued with a Charge Memo in PR.No.F1/12/05, dated 15.02.2005 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955, for having illicit intimacy with one woman Tmt.Samundeeswari of Selvapuram at Coimbatore, who was already married and having children and thereby violated Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Traffic), Coimbatore City, who is the appointing authority, issued a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 against the petitioner and after receipt of explanation and being not satisfied, a preliminary enquiry was directed to be conducted. Tmt.Indirani, Woman Inspector, was examined as P.W.1 in the enquiry, and on the basis of the preliminary investigation, the oral enquiry was directed to be conducted. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police was appointed to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, oral enquiry was conducted in which 15 witnesses were examined from both sides and 26 documents were produced from both sides and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a further show cause notice was also issued, calling upon the delinquent Police Constable to submit a detailed explanation and on the basis of the further explanation submitted by the petitioner herein, the disciplinary authority having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer reveals that the Enquiry Officer examined, Tmt.Indirani a Woman Inspector as P.W.1 in a preliminary enquiry with Tmt.Samundeewari in connection with this issue and as per the deposition given by P.W.1, Tmt.Indirani, Woman Inspector, it was stated that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with Tmt.Samundeeswari. Again, Tmt.Samundeeswari was also examined as P.W.2, who also deposed that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with her, but he subsequently, discarded her, which made her to file a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City against the petitioner. Further, the mother of Tmt.Samundeeswari, Tmt.Kamalam was also examined as P.W.3. In her evidence she has stated that her daughter was having close illicit intimacy with the petitioner for the past 1-1/2 years. Further, the mother of Tmt.Samundeeswari, Tmt.Kamalam was also examined as P.W.3. In her evidence she has stated that her daughter was having close illicit intimacy with the petitioner for the past 1-1/2 years. But thereafter, the petitioner and Tmt.Samundeeswari also got married, but P.W.3 did not know where the marriage was held. That apart, one Tmt.Shanthi was also examined as P.W.4 and Thiru.Annamalai was examined as P.W.5, have corroborated the version of P.W.3 and only on the basis of the acceptable evidence let in by all the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner has entered into illicit intimacy and had thereby, violated Rule 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority also gave one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further explanation and having not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the order of dismissal from service, was passed, by holding that the petitioner committed the delinquency of moral turpitude in having illicit intimacy with one Tmt.Samundeeswari, a married woman, during the year 2004 and lived as husband and wife and thereby violated under Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Conduct Rules, 1964. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. The Commissioner of Police, being the appellate authority, while considering the case of the petitioner, further held that the petitioner being a member of disciplined force and having committed delinquency by violating Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Conduct Rules, 1964, declined to interfere with the order of dismissal from service as that would send a wrong message to the members of the Uniformed Service. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not substantially proved in the enquiry. Therefore, the question of finding him guilty and also awarding major punishment of dismissal from service, is bad in law. Further, in his submission, he would also stress that the complainant, Tmt.Samundeeswari, proved to be a person of bad character, which would be evident from her earlier marriage in the year 1994 with one Thiru.Paramasivam, whom she deserted in 1995. Therefore, the question of finding him guilty and also awarding major punishment of dismissal from service, is bad in law. Further, in his submission, he would also stress that the complainant, Tmt.Samundeeswari, proved to be a person of bad character, which would be evident from her earlier marriage in the year 1994 with one Thiru.Paramasivam, whom she deserted in 1995. Tmt.Samundeeswari again married Thiru.Dharmalingam, a Driver and got children and, thereafter, she had moved with the petitioner. Therefore, the character of Tmt.Samundeeswari, even at the first sight is not satisfactory and, therefore, it is not correct to say that the petitioner has married another lady and thus the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority ought not to have awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service. Due to the said order of dismissal, the entire family of the petitioner is thrown out on the pavement and, therefore, he has moved before this Court to consider modifying the punishment from the order of dismissal from service, to one of compulsory retirement. 5. While refuting all the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that in view of the recent amendment made to the Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964, the petitioners case could not be considered. The relevant amendment is extracted hereunder:- "(2) No Police Officer shall involve himself in any act involving moral turpitude on his part including any unlawful act, which may cause embarrassment or which may bring discredit to Government." 6. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that when a complaint was received by the respondent Department at the instance of the affected lady Tmt.Samundeeswari, the Department did not hold the enquiry against the petitioner, but, ordered preliminary inquiry by appointing a responsible woman Police Inspector namely, Tmt.Indirani who also conducted a preliminary enquiry and finally came to the conclusion that the petitioner had illicit intimacy with one Tmt.Samundeeswari. Therefore, the respondent Department also ordered for enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer to go into all the allegations on the complaint made by Tmt.Samundeeswari. Therefore, the respondent Department also ordered for enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer to go into all the allegations on the complaint made by Tmt.Samundeeswari. According to the Enquiry Officer, reasonable opportunity was given to both sides; he analysed almost 15 witnesses and 26 documents and only on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed serious violation of Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964 and finally submitted a report holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, having seen that the petitioner being a member of disciplined force, did not come forward to show any leniency and for the purpose of maintaining the strict morale in the Department, passed the order of dismissal from service and the same was also subsequently upheld by the appellate authority. Therefore, this Court, while exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the punishment awarded against the petitioner who belongs to the Uniformed Service, particularly, in view of the serious violation made by the petitioner under Rule 23 (2) and on this basis, prayed for dismissal from service. 7. It is seen that the charges levelled against the petitioner under Section 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 were found to be proved finally against the petitioner for the delinquency of having illicit intimacy with one Tmt.Samundeeswari, Selvapuram at Coimbatore. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer, after analysing the evidences, 15 witnesses and the documents, came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved under Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Conduct Rules, 1964. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the petitioner belongs to the disciplined force and the charges were found proved under Rule 23 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964, which says that "no police officer shall involve himself in any act involving moral turpitude on his part including any unlawful act, which may cause embarrassment or which may bring discredit to Government." The disciplinary authority having seen that the petitioner violated Rule 23 (2) which was also found proved against the petitioner, thought it fit not to show any leniency to the petitioner. Therefore, the award of punishment of dismissal from service was also confirmed by the appellate authority. The petitioner knows fully well that he is in the Uniformed Service, which is otherwise called disciplined force. It is the settled legal position that the Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment, particularly in a matter where a police officer was found to be guilty of violation of Rule 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules, 1964. Therefore, this Court does not find any substance in the Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.