Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders in PR.No.138799 dated 30.10.1999 and RC No.62439/API(2)/2000 dated 17.4.2000 and quash the same and grant such other further relief. 2. The petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Armed Reserve from 29.7.1997. On 25.5.1999, the Honble Prmine Minister was scheduled to visit Chennai Airport on his way to Pondicherry. The petitioner was drafted to VVIP security duty along with police personnel on 23.5.1999, to guard the Helicopters parked in old Airport, Meenambakkam. The three Helicopters bearing Nos.Z-3043, Z-3044 and Z-1368 were got ready in the old Airport by the Indian Air force right from 23.5.1999 onwards to enable the Honble Prime Minister to fly in one of the Helicopters to Pondicherry. All the security and antisabotage checks were conducted in the particular Helicopter bearing No.Z-3044 parked in the middle of the other two Helicopters. After observing all the formalities the said Helicopter was duly sealed by the proper authorities and handed over to the petitioner and the guard party. 3. The guard parties were Mr.Balaji, Mr.Munusamy and Mr.Devasagayam. For three Helicopters there were 3 guard commanders and 3 guards and they were relieved at regular intervals. The petitioner was an overall incharge of the guard duty. Mr.Deva Sagayam was Guard Commander. Mr.Munusamy and Mr.Balaji were in the rank of Police Constable. The petitioner was in the rank of Sub Inspector. 4. On 25.5.1999 at 03.15 A.M. hours, Mr.Balaji a member of the Guard party who was guarding the Helicopter No.Z-3044, questioned Mr.Munusamy the reason as to why the Helicopters parked adjacent were not having seals. While so, said Balaji twisted the hand seal of the Helicopter Z-3044 and as a result, the seal was broken. To conceal the above mischief, he put two wires over the seal. Mr.Munusamy informed the same to the Guard Commander Devasagayam. The said incident was entered in Sentry relief book by the Guard Commander at 03.40 A.M. Later, when the superior officer visited at 11.30 A.M for inspection, the petitioner informed the same to those officers. 5. To conceal the above mischief, he put two wires over the seal. Mr.Munusamy informed the same to the Guard Commander Devasagayam. The said incident was entered in Sentry relief book by the Guard Commander at 03.40 A.M. Later, when the superior officer visited at 11.30 A.M for inspection, the petitioner informed the same to those officers. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioner was issued a Charge Memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D & A) Rules in P.R.No.138/99 alleging that he was negligent in duty by allowing Mr.Balaji to tamper the seal in the V.V.I.P Helipad on 25.05.1999 and failed to inform the tampering done by Balaji to the Superior Officers, promptly. 6. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. In the enquiry, six witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked on the side of the department. The enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 3.8.1999 holding that the charges were proved. Based on the findings, the first respondent issued an order dated 30.4.1999 imposing the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by 2 stages for 2 years with cumulative effect. As against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the appeal was dismissed by the second respondent by an order dated 17.4.2000. 7. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.5263 2000 (W.P.No.44623 of 2006) to quash the orders dated 30.10.1999 and 17.4.2002 passed by the first and second respondents respectively. 8. The respondents have filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. 9. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. The petitioner was posted at V.V.I.P. Security duty along with three police personnel on 23.5.1999 at 14.00 P.M. hours to guard 3 Helicopters parked in old Meeenambakkam. The 3 police personnels were Mr.Balaji, Mr.Munusamy and Mr.Devasagayam. They were his subordinates. Mr.Balaji was to guard the Helicopter Z1368; Mr.Munusamy was to guard the Helicopter Z-3044 and Mr.Devasagayam was to guard the Helicopter Z-3043. Z-3044 Helicopter was stationed in between the Helicopters Z-3043 and Z-3058. The authorities cleared the Helicopter Z-3044 for the use of the Honble Prime Minister after observing all the formalities. The said Helicopter was duly sealed by the Airport Officers and handed over to the petitioner and the 3 Guards. 11. Z-3044 Helicopter was stationed in between the Helicopters Z-3043 and Z-3058. The authorities cleared the Helicopter Z-3044 for the use of the Honble Prime Minister after observing all the formalities. The said Helicopter was duly sealed by the Airport Officers and handed over to the petitioner and the 3 Guards. 11. Mr.Balaji, Police constable who was guarding Helicopter Z-1368 went to ask Mr.Munusamy as to why the seal was put to his Helicopter Z-3044. While stating so, he twisted the handle of the sealed door of the Helicopter and the seal was broken. Mr.Balaji, to conceal the above mischief, put two wires over the seal. But, Mr.Munusamy reported the matter immediately to Mr.Devasagayam, Guard Commander and the same was recorded in the Sentry relief book. The aforesaid event of tampering of seal took place at 03.40 a.m. in the morning. When the Superior Officer came to that spot at 11.30 A.M., the same was informed to the Superior Officer by the petitioner. 12. While so, a Charge Memo was issued in P.R.No.138/1999 under Rule 3 (b) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D & A) Rules. Charges were made in the Charge Memo against the petitioner as follows: "Gross dereliction of duty in having allowed AR.P.C.3298 Balaji to tamper the seal in the V.V.I.P Helipad on 25.05.1999 while performing V.V.I.P. Security and having failed to inform the facts to his superior officers promptly." 13. There are two components of the Charge Memo. Firstly, the allegation is made that the petitioner allowed Mr.Balaji to tamper the seal in the Helicopter. Secondly, it is stated that he failed to inform the tampering of the seal to the Superior Officers immediately. 14. Mr.Munusamy, who guarded the Helicopter Z-3044, was examined as one of witnesses. He was the only eye witness to the incident. He had spoken that when Mr.Balalji came near to him and tampered with the seal, he (Mr.Munusamy) came behind him and shouted not to touch the Helicopter. But Mr.Balaji pulled the door handle and there was a noise and the seal had got broken. The same was reported by Mr.Munusamy to the Guard Commander Mr.Devasagayam at 03.40 A.M. and the same was recorded in the Sentry relief book. It was also informed to the petitioner. The petitioner also inspected the Helicopter and recorded at 03.45 A.M. that the seal alone was there while it was broken. The same was reported by Mr.Munusamy to the Guard Commander Mr.Devasagayam at 03.40 A.M. and the same was recorded in the Sentry relief book. It was also informed to the petitioner. The petitioner also inspected the Helicopter and recorded at 03.45 A.M. that the seal alone was there while it was broken. Later at 11.30 A.M. when the Air Force/Superior Officers visited the spot, the petitioner informed them that the seal was broken by Mr.Balaji. The following evidence of Mr.Munusamy is extracted hereunder. "Tamil” 15. Other witnesses are not direct witnesses. The witness Mr.Munusamy no where stated that the petitioner allowed Mr.Balaji to tamper the seal in the Helicopter. Further more, all the Helicopters stood one after other and Mr.Balaji is one of Police Constables who was in guard duty. It is not in the evidence that the petitioner permitted Mr.Balaji to go to the place of Mr.Munusamy and to tamper with the seal on the Helicopter Z-3044. 16. I am of the view, that there is no evidence at all as to the first component of the Charge Memo. The enquiry officer, while holding that the charges were proved, he did not specifically find that the petitioner allowed Mr.Balaji to tamper the seal. The enquiry officer simply held that the charges were proved. 17. As far as the component of the second charge is concerned, the petitioner did not inform immediately to the Superior Officer after the tampering of the seal and there is ample evidence in this regard. Though the petitioner recorded the incident in the Sentry relief book at 03.45 A.M. as per the evidence of Mr.Munusamy, the petitioner failed to inform the same to the Superior Officer and he informed the same to the higher officers when they came to the spot for inspection at 11.30 A.M. Hence the petitioner did not promptly inform to his Superior Officers about the tamper of the seal by Mr.Balaji. 18. However, there is no evidence as to the first component of the charge Memo and that was not considered by both the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. If this point had been taken note of, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, could not have imposed the punishment. 19. 18. However, there is no evidence as to the first component of the charge Memo and that was not considered by both the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. If this point had been taken note of, the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, could not have imposed the punishment. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court could modify the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by 2 stages for 2 years with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect if this Court has come to the conclusion that the first portion of the Charge was not proved. 20. I am not inclined to do the same. It is for the Authorities to consider as to what would be the proper punishment, taking into account the aforesaid facts. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority/second respondent to consider and pass appropriate order on merits based on the above observations within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. With the above observations, this writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.