Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the senior most Sub-Inspector of Police, at the relevant point time. He worked as Sub-Inspector in Sattur Police Station from 12.05.1995 to 16.10.1995. A day prior to his transfer, there was an illicit arrack tragedy at Sattur, resulting in the death of 28 persons. 42 persons consumed poisonous arrack at Sattur on 15.10.1995 and 28 out of those 42 persons died. This led to the issuance of a charge memo dated 31.01.1996 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Officer recorded his finding on 11.07.1998 stating that the petitioner worked only for a short period and he had done impressive work in the prohibition front, despite pre-occupation with Law and Order. It was also recorded in the findings that he registered a large number of cases in prohibition front and he detected 150 cases relating to illicit arrack and that he conducted frequent raids. However, the respondent sent a letter dated 14.10.1999, recording its dissent views on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The respondent heavily relied on the Government letter dated 23.08.1991 to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. 2. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.11.1999. He submitted that the letter dated 23.08.1991 of the Government relied on by the respondent to hold him guilty of charges is not applicable to him. However, the respondent passed the impugned G.O.4 (D)No.38, Home (Pol.IA) Department, dated 12.05.2000, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 3. The petitioner has filed th Original Application in O.A.No.6127 of 2000 (W.P.No.2939 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid G.O.4(D)No.38, dated 12.05.2000 of the respondent. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 5. Heard Mr.Ravishanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that except relying on the letter dated 23.08.1991 of the Government, there is no reason assigned by the respondent for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 5. Heard Mr.Ravishanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that except relying on the letter dated 23.08.1991 of the Government, there is no reason assigned by the respondent for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. According to him, the said letter dated 23.08.1991 is not applicable to the petitioner, as it deals with the persons who are indifferent or ineffective in handling the illicit distillation and allied activities. He further submits that the death was due to poisoning of illicit arrack and just because there was death, the petitioner could not be charged that he was negligent in his duties. He also submits that the Equiry Officer gave a categorical finding and that the Enquiry Officer was the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai. He also submits that while the incident took place on 15.10.1995, the petitioner was transferred on 16.10.1995, without reference to the incident. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and this Court could not interfere with the impugned order, unless there is any illegality. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 9. The petitioner worked for a short period in Sattur Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police from 12.05.1995 to 16.10.1995. A day prior to his transfer, a tragedy took place, wherein 28 persons lost their lives due to consummation of illicit arrack. The Petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police in Law and Order in Sattur Police Station. Though he was not in prohibition side, he was also responsible for enforcement of prohibition laws. According to the petitioner, he registered a large number of cases when compared to others, when he served for a short tenure. He made frequent raids and registered cases. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, who was the Enquiry Officer, recorded a finding dated 11.07.1998 that the charges were not established against the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai, recorded the following findings:- "It is, however, pertinent to note that the accused officer, who was in Sattur only for a short period, had done impressive work in the prohibition front, despite pre-occupation with law and order. During June/July/August, Sattur area was affected by serious inter-caste disturbances resulting in murders and other forms of violence. During June/July/August, Sattur area was affected by serious inter-caste disturbances resulting in murders and other forms of violence. The SI had taken charge at a critical period. Even then, he had not neglected prohibition enforcement. More than 150 cases were detected during the period when he was at Sattur; and he has also conducted personal raids frequently. Under the circumstances, I tend to conclude that the incident mentioned in the charge could not be attributed to any lapse on the part of the SI." In the enquiry, the Doctor was examined as PW-3. Based on the evidence of PW-3, the Enquiry Officer also recorded that the occurrence was due to mixing of pesticide poison. The finding relating to the poisonous illicit arrack by the Enquiry Officer is as follows:- "It is seen from the evidence P.W.3 that the occurrence was due to mixing of pesticide poison. Unlike the so-called hooch tragedy in which methyl alcocol would cause physical harm, in the present case, poison has been added apparently with some ulterior motive." 10. The respondent issued a letter dated 04.10.1999 and recorded its disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Para 2 of the said letter is relevant for the case and the same is extracted here-under:- "The Government have carefully examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer with the connected records. The Enquiry Officer has held that the prevalence of illicit arrack in the Village was established and that the local public was never divested of enforcing TNP Act and the local police continued to have joint responsibility in enforcement work. Besides in Govt. Lr.No.17421/P&E-V/91-2, dated 23.08.1991, details of action to be taken against the local police including the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been prescribed for the indifferent or ineffective handling of the large scale illicit-distillation and allied activities in their jurisdiction. The Government have held that your are also responsible for the negligence in the enforcement work at the Sub-Division. The Government therefore disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold the charge as proved against you." As per above, it could be seen that the respondent solely relied on the letter dated 23.08.1991 of the Government to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in his duties. Apart from the said letter dated 23.08.1991, there is no other reason given by the respondent for disagreement. 11. Apart from the said letter dated 23.08.1991, there is no other reason given by the respondent for disagreement. 11. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 23.11.1999, running to 6 pages and pointed out that the letter dated 23.08.1991 relied on by the respondent is not applicable to him and that the said letter relates to indifferent or ineffective handling of prohibition enforcement by the police officials. He also submitted that he gave the details of cases registered by him and the raids conducted by him. He also pointed out the findings of the Enquiry Officer in this regard. Para 10 of his reply is extracted hereunder:- "Regarding averments of the applicant in paragraphs 6(2) to 6(15) of the Original Application it is submitted that the finding of the enquiry officer holding the charge as not proved was not accepted by the punishing authority and impugned punishment was imposed by the competent authority after giving due opportunity to the applicant to defend himself. The charge was of a very serious nature in which the lives of 28 persons had been last due to the negligence of the applicant in his duties. All the officers who were in-charge of Law and Order and Prohibition Enforcement Wing were held responsible and were punished. The applicant who was the Station House Officer of the Police Station in whose jurisdiction the tragedy occurred, was primarily responsible to prevent such tragedies. Any amount of good work cited by him cannot absolve him of the responsibility of maintaining his jurisdiction free from illicit and spurious liquor. The Enquiry Officer held that illicit and spurious liquor was prevalent in the jurisdiction of the applicant officer which in itself was sufficient to prove that the applicant had neglected his duty. It is submitted that the applicant was imposed with a minor punishment only, considering the grave nature of the delinquency and consequences of his neglect of duty which had resulted in the demise of 28 persons. The contention of the applicant that he served for a short duration in, Sattur is also not acceptable, as he joined the P.S. on 12.05.1995 and was shifted out after the occurrence. The contention of the applicant that he served for a short duration in, Sattur is also not acceptable, as he joined the P.S. on 12.05.1995 and was shifted out after the occurrence. Therefore the application is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits." In the said letter 23.11.1999, he categorically stated that the letter dated 23.08.1991 is not applicable to him as it deals with the police officials who were indifferent or ineffective in handling prohibition enforcement. But, the respondent, passed the impugned G.O.4(D)No.38, dated 12.05.2000, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, on the ground that the charges were held proved. 12. The petitioner categorically stated that the letter dated 23.08.1991 is not applicable to him, but the same was not considered in the impugned G.O.4(D)No.38, dated 12.05.2000. 13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer categorically held that the petitioner did impressive work in the prohibition front and that he made frequent raids and that 150 cases were detected during his period. He also recorded that the petitioner conducted raids frequently and when that is the categorical findings by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent could not simply rely on the letter dated 23.08.1991 to upset the said findings. The respondent does not dispute the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 14. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the letter dated 23.08.1991 referred to by the respondent relates to the police officials who were indifferent or ineffective in handling prohibition enforcement. But, the petitioner could not be blamed that he was indifferent or ineffective in handling prohibition matters, particularly, in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 15. Hence, the respondent did not apply its mind to the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer, while holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges. While recording the dissent note, the respondent did not adduce any reason, except referring the letter dated 23.08.1991 of the Government. Hence, the impugned order was passed without application of mind, in an arbitrary way. The petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.