Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo containing two charges. 1. Reprehensible conduct in having left his Headquarters without prior permission while on ML on 28.03.92. 2. Highly reprehensible conduct in having waylaid and assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian S/o Ulaganathan of Urkadu Village with hands and tore his shirts and banian in drunken mood on 28.03.92 at 7.45 pm near Fire Service Station, Ambasamudram. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. Having not satisfied with the explanation, oral enquiry was held and the following 7 witnesses were examined. 1. Nellai Muthupandian S/o Ulaganathan Urkadu 2. Arumugam S/o Palanisamy Thevar, Ambai 3. Natarajan S/o Mookathaver, Urkadu 4. Samikannu, Sub Inspector of Police, Ambai 5. Thillai Chithambara, Govt. Medical Officer, Ambai 6. Tr.Samudrakani, Sub Inspector of Police, VK Puram 7. Tr. Karpagavinayagam, Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram. After completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, after calling for explanation and being not satisfied with the second explanation, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the same was also rejected. As against that, a review petition was filed before the 3rd respondent/Inspector General of Police and the same was also rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the present OA has been filed on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should not have been given the major punishment of compulsory retirement, when he has rendered 21 years of unblemished service. In his further submission, he sought modification of the order of compulsory retirement into a minor punishment, since the major penalty of compulsory retirement is not commensurate with the allegation levelled against the petitioner. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3. In his further submission, he sought modification of the order of compulsory retirement into a minor punishment, since the major penalty of compulsory retirement is not commensurate with the allegation levelled against the petitioner. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has committed serious crime by assaulting one Nellai Muthupandian with hands and tore his shirts and banian in drunken mood near Fire Service Station, Ambasamudram and the complaint was also lodged in Ambasamudram Police Station in P.R.No.178/92 under Sections 341, 323 IPC on the same day and the same was also investigated and the case is pending. When the petitioner had no grievance in the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in conducting the enquiry against him, the petitioner cannot challenge the order of compulsory retirement. The enquiry officer, after examining 7 witnesses, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the second charge levelled against him and on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed the punishment. Even if the petitioner is not convicted by the criminal court, still it is open to the respondents to award an enhanced punishment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot complain that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is excessive. However, his appeal filed before the 2nd respondent was also properly considered and rejected and against which the petitioner preferred review petition before the Inspector General of Police/3rd respondent herein and the same was also dismissed by a reasoned order. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioner, while serving as Police Constable, not only left his Headquarters without prior permission, while on medical leave on 28.03.92, but, the petitioner waylaid and assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian and tore his shirts and banian in drunken mood on the same day at 7.45 p.m. near Fire Service Station, Ambasamudram. After the said incident, the affected person made a criminal complaint against the petitioner in Ambasamudram Police Station and the same was also registered in Cr.No.178/92 under Sections 341, 323 IPC. After registration of the same, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner on the file of the criminal court. After the said incident, the affected person made a criminal complaint against the petitioner in Ambasamudram Police Station and the same was also registered in Cr.No.178/92 under Sections 341, 323 IPC. After registration of the same, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner on the file of the criminal court. In the meanwhile, since the petitioner has assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian by tearing his shirts and banian in drunken mood on 28.03.92, he was issued with a charge memo. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, examined 7 witnesses as mentioned above. P.W.1 has stated to the effect that the incident occurred on 28.03.92 at 7.45 p.m. while he was proceeding from Urkadu Village to Ambasamudran on a bicycle and the signed statement of P.W.1, dated 28.03.92 is marked as Ex.P1. In his statement, he has deposed that on 28.03.92 at 7.45 p.m., when he was proceeding from Urkadu to Ambai, he was badly assaulted by the petitioner by twisting his hand and beating him with his hands on his back and caused simple injuries to him in front of Valarmathi tea stall. Again, one Arumugam, owner of the tea stall, was also examined as P.W2. In his deposition, he has stated that when he intervened and separated the complainant from the petitioner in order to prevent further incident, P.W2 has clearly mentioned that the petitioner was in a drunken mood in mufty dress. After examining 7 witnesses, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the second explanation offered by the petitioner, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, but the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent. As against that, the petitioner preferred review petition before the 3rd respondent. After considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of the available material, the 3rd respondent thought fit to affirm the order of compulsory retirement by holding that the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence. The said order is now under challenge. 6. As against that, the petitioner preferred review petition before the 3rd respondent. After considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of the available material, the 3rd respondent thought fit to affirm the order of compulsory retirement by holding that the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence. The said order is now under challenge. 6. Since the petitioner was imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement, by not taking into account 21 years of service, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot complain that he was awarded with excessive punishment, which is disproportionate to the proved charges levelled against him. In fact, the petitioner, while serving as Police Constable, should not have left the headquarters, when he was on medical leave, without any prior permission. Therefore, the petitioner has not only committed serious misconduct in going out of the Headquarters without prior permission while on medical leave, but on the very same day, the petitioner in a drunken mood assaulted one Nellai Muthupandian, who was examined as P.W.1. Therefore, the disciplinary authority, on the available evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner, being a police constable belonging to the disciplined force, should not have committed serious offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the respondents 2 and 3, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court, as has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as Apex Court in a Catena of cases that the Courts, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shown to be arbitrary or perverse or is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No Costs.