JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.2914 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated 11.07.2000 passed by the second respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Reserve, Trichy, as well as the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the first respondent, namely the Inspector General of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai and seeks to set aside the same, with a direction to award all consequential benefits. By the impugned order, the second respondent imposed the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect to run concurrently on the expiry of the punishment of reduction already awarded in the earlier proceedings dated 12.05.2000. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was also rejected by the first respondent and hence, the Original Application. 2. The Original Application was admitted on 25.04.2001. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 14.08.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.49470 of 2006. 3. The facts leading to the imposition of penalty are as follows: The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. He was charge sheeted under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was in medical leave between 01.08.1994 and 10.08.1994 for 10 days, on 02.08.1994 he went to his father-in-law's house and invited his wife to accompany him. When she refused to accompany him, he took the LPG Gas rubber pipe and beaten her with the pipe and also attempted to strangle the throat of his father-in-law and threatened the nearby persons. Though initially an ex-parte enquiry was held, subsequently, on appeal, a de-novo enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 on the side of the Department and one defence witness was examined as D.W.1 on the side of the petitioner. The defence witness is none other than the petitioner's wife Mrs.K.Shobana, M.Sc., M.Ed. The father-in-law of the petitioner was also examined. He was a retired professor and he stuck to his complaint dated 02.08.1994. The defence witness is none other than the petitioner's wife Mrs.K.Shobana, M.Sc., M.Ed. The father-in-law of the petitioner was also examined. He was a retired professor and he stuck to his complaint dated 02.08.1994. On the basis of the complaint given by him, a case was registered in B-4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, in Crime No.1228 of 1994 under Sections 448, 352 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4(1)(j) of the TNP Act. But the case was withdrawn by the prosecution from the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, in C.C.Nos.313 and 314 of 1994 on 21.08.1995, whereas the case of the father-in-law of the petitioner was totally denied by the wife of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, despite such serious discrepancies in the oral enquiry, found the petitioner guilty. Aggrieved with the same, the punishment came to be imposed. 4. In the present case, when the petitioner's wife herself has come forward to deny the incident, it is not for the Department to rely upon the complaint of the father-in-law, against whom a prejudice has been attributed. In fact, when the matter was called on 27.06.2011, the petitioner's wife was present in the Court and she has also produced a copy of the statement given by her during the cross examination. In the departmental enquiry, she had stated that her father's complaint was a false complaint and she denied that she has ever been ill-treated by her husband. She has also stated that she studied M.Sc., M.Ed., M.Phil. Regarding the charge memo, she has stated that it is her father, who gave false complaint against her husband. 5. Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader has stated that the petitioner was subsequently convicted in a criminal case in C.C.No.344/2002 and based on the said conviction, he was removed from service in P.R.No.34/1997. 6. However, Mr.M.S.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of removal and the present case, need not be clouded by the subsequent developments. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there was any legal evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. This Court is satisfied that the respondents have not appreciated the material evidence namely the evidence of the petitioner's wife, who was examined as D.W.1 before the Enquiry Officer and who had denied the incident. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there was any legal evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. This Court is satisfied that the respondents have not appreciated the material evidence namely the evidence of the petitioner's wife, who was examined as D.W.1 before the Enquiry Officer and who had denied the incident. Therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner, especially when D.W.1 has pleaded that she was leading a harmonious life with the petitioner. 8. In the light of the above, the impugned orders stand set aside and the writ petition stand allowed. No costs.