Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was Grade I Police Constable. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Services (D&A) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was while he was escorting the prisoners viz., Karuppiah and Sait from Poonamallee Sub-Jail to Poonamalle Government Hospital, the accused Karuppiah escaped from the custody around 10.00 a.m. on 15.02.1999. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 16.02.1999. 2. It was the case of the petitioner that one Police Constable Balu and the petitioner were on escort duty for the said two prisoners to the Government Hospital, Poonamalle for treatment. After the treatment, the petitioner left the prisoners with another Police Constable and went to get an endorsement on the Passport and the Medical book from the Medical Officer. At that time, the prisoner Karuppiah escaped from the hospital. The petitioner himself had made a search of the escaped prisoner and only on 16.02.1999 around 1.00 p.m., he informed the police station by a special report about the missing of the prisoner. 3. An enquiry was held against the petitioner. In the enquiry, one Jesudoss, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the duty officer belonging to 6th Batallion and one Augustine Laceres, Inspector of the Armed Reserve, Chengalpattu East District were examined and 10 documents were also filed. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer held that though the petitioner had subsequently attempted to secure the prisoner, but his defence on that score cannot be accepted and hence the charges levelled against him were held to be proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Superintendent of Police, East Chengalpattu imposed the penalty of Black Mark on the petitioner as a punishment. 4. However, the said order dated 06.04.1999 came to be reviewed by the first respondent and a show cause notice dated 23.06.1999 was issued to him. It was stated that the Black Mark awarded by the competent authority in P.R.29/99 especially for a charge under Rule 3(b) is not proportionate and it requires a deterrent punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.07.1999. It was stated that the Black Mark awarded by the competent authority in P.R.29/99 especially for a charge under Rule 3(b) is not proportionate and it requires a deterrent punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.07.1999. But examining the said explanation and on the basis of the suo motu review, the first respondent differed from the opinion of the competent authority and held that the petitioner should be imposed with the penalty of reduction in scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. In paragraph 4 of the said order, the first respondent recorded the finding which is as follows:- "4. I have gone through the entire PR file with connected records and the explanation of the delinquent carefully. The delinquent has not putforth any valid points in his explanation for consideration. The explanation of the delinquent is not at all convincing and acceptable. The delinquent was dealt with for, dereliction of duty for the escape of a prisoner Karuppaiah while escorting him to Government Hospital, Poonamallee for treatment from Special Jail, Poonamallee on 15.2.99 at 10.00 hours. The incident was occurred at 10.00 hours on 15.2.99 but the delinquent had made a complaint at Poonamallee Police Station at 23.45 hours after a delay of more than 12 hours, further the escaped prisoner was surrendered himself before the J.M.Court, Pudukottai on 4.3.99. But the delinquent says that he and the co-delinquent have taken efforts and secured the escaped prisoner Karuppaiah with the held of DW.1. The points raised by the delinquent are only afterthought. As a responsible police person he should be vigil while escorting the accused. It is serious delinquency of dereliction of duty and allowed the prisoner to escape from his custody. Hence, I take a serious view on this and enhance the punishment of Black Mark awarded by the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu East District into that of a "pay reduction by two stages for two years with cumulative effect from the date of receipt of the order." 5. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner as well as the other Grade-I Constable were imposed with the penalty by an order dated 19.08.1999. The petitioner sent an appeal to the first respondent and even when the appeal is pending, he moved the Tribunal, challenging the order passed by the first respondent. 6. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner as well as the other Grade-I Constable were imposed with the penalty by an order dated 19.08.1999. The petitioner sent an appeal to the first respondent and even when the appeal is pending, he moved the Tribunal, challenging the order passed by the first respondent. 6. Notice of motion was ordered by the Tribunal on 14.09.2000. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.NO.44027 of 2006. 7. The contention raised by the petitioner was that there was no delay in preferring the complaint regarding the escape of the prisoner and in the absence of any mens rea on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be punished only on the ground of escape of prisoner from lawful custody and that the competent authority had applied his mind and imposed the penalty and there are no compelling circumstances warranting the first respondent to take a different view that too by exercising his extraordinary power by suo motu review. 8. These questions cannot be gone into by this Court especially, when the authorities under the relevant statutory rules are empowered to review any order passed by a competent authority. The petitioner has been given a show cause notice and the explanation of the petitioner was also considered by the first respondent in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order (extracted above). The first respondent had applied his mind and has given cogent reasons for the enhancement of punishment. 9. Considering that is is only a minor penalty and that too passed by the competent authority, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said penalty. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.