Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenged the punishment of reduction in pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect passed by the respondent. 2. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 24.06.97 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, which is extracted as follows:- i. Reprehensible conduct of duty in not having attended the High Court of judicature at Madras in Somangalam Police Station in Cr.No.56/95 under Section 302 IPC on 23.07.96, 27.07.96, 01.08.96, 06.08.96, 07.08.96 and 12.08.96. Since the petitioner failed to submit his explanation after receipt of the charge memo, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub Division, submitted his minutes holding him guilty, stating that the petitioner had no valid explanation to offer. The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu MGR (W) District, on 02.01.97, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, awarded the punishment of censure on the petitioner. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police, on 26.05.97, by cancelling the above said punishment, issued fresh charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 against the petitioner as well as Inspector of Police, Pandian. The enquiry officer, after completion of the enquiry proceedings, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the Inspector of Police, Pandian, not proved. But the Commissioner of Police, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, awarded the punishment of censure deferred for six months from the date of receipt of the order. But, in respect of the petitioner, since the findings were against the petitioner, holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him, he was imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the Inspector of Police as well as Sub-Inspector of Police appeared for the same charges, the disciplinary authority should not have imposed more punishment to the petitioner alone, while imposing the lesser punishment to the Inspector of Police, who is the superior officer to the petitioner. On that basis, prayed for modification of the punishment from the reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect into one of censure deferred for six months as awarded to the Inspector of Police. 4. On that basis, prayed for modification of the punishment from the reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect into one of censure deferred for six months as awarded to the Inspector of Police. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the prayer made by the petitioner to modify the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect, cannot be altered into one of censure deferred for six months, in comparison with the punishment inflicted to Pandian, who was serving as Inspector of Police, for the reason that the enquiry officer, while dealing the charges levelled against the petitioner as well as Inspector of Police, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved, but, in respect of the Inspector of Police, Pandian, it was not proved. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, he was incharge of police station, whereas Pandian is concerned, he was Inspector of Police, incharge of N4 Fishing Harbour Police Station. Whilso, both the persons were dealt with under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Further, the enquiry officer, by going into the charges levelled against the petitioner as well as Inspector of Police, came to the conclusion that no charge was proved in respect of the Inspector of Police. Yet, the disciplinary authority, after perusing the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of censure deferred for six months from the date of receipt of the order on the Inspector of Police. But, in respect of the petitioner, he was found guilty by the enquiry officer. When the enquiry officer found the petitioner alone guilty of the above said charge, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the suitable punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any substance to modify the punishment imposed against the petitioner and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.