Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Director General of Police / first respondent herein, in and by which, he has held that the charges are serious and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is a major one. 2. The petitioner was, initially, appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 15.10.1975 and thereafter, he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 29.09.1999. Subsequently, he was served with a charge memo in P.R.No.49/95 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules. The allegation in the charge memo is that on 17.03.1992, the petitioner had taken away the hand bag of one G.S.Mani and absented from duty on 17.03.1992 from 7.00 p.m. to the next day 6.00 a.m. and continued to be absent until 04.04.1992 without any leave or permission. In the enquiry, he was found guilty and thereafter, he was imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, by order dated 26.04.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal unsuccessfully. But, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 22.07.1997. 3. After some time, in the year 2002, the Director General of Police issued a circular dated 26.09.2002. As per the said circular, it was decided that if any police officer is facing any minor punishment, which standing as a bar for getting promotion to higher post, the said punishment was directed to be cancelled. In view of the said circular dated 26.09.2002, the petitioner filed a review petition before the first respondent. During the pendency of the review petition before the first respondent, the petitioner has also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.6331/97, 1931/96 and 3425/2003 challenging the very same punishment itself. The learned Tribunal, by order dated 20.10.1993, directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to pass orders with regard to the punishment suffered by the petitioner in the light of the proceedings dated 26.09.2002 and further, it was sated that the petitioner has suffered only a minor punishment. 4. The learned Tribunal, by order dated 20.10.1993, directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to pass orders with regard to the punishment suffered by the petitioner in the light of the proceedings dated 26.09.2002 and further, it was sated that the petitioner has suffered only a minor punishment. 4. Therefore, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is when there is a finding by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.6331/97, 1931/96 and 3425/2003, dated 20.10.1993, that the petitioner suffered only a minor punishment, it is not open to the first respondent to hold that the charges are serious and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is a major one. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner has suffered only a minor punishment, therefore, he is entitled to have the benefit of circular dated 26.09.2002. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no doubt the petitioner suffered a minor punishment, namely, reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, by order dated 26.04.1997. But, the nature of charges, with which he was tried departmentally are major in nature. Since the petitioner has suffered an allegation of taking away the hand bag from one G.S.Mani and also suffered another allegation of absence from duty, the disciplinary authority, after completion of the enquiry, finding that all the charges were proved, finally, imposed a punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, but that does not mean that the punishment though being minor, he is entitled to get the benefit of circular dated 26.09.2002. With the aforesaid submission, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is true that the petitioner has suffered a punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, in view of the allegation levelled against him found proved. For better appreciation, the charges levelled against the petitioner are extracted as under:- i. Reprehensible conduct in taking away the hand bag containing clothes and cash from one G.S.Mani of Singanallur on 17.03.1992 at 01.30 hrs. For better appreciation, the charges levelled against the petitioner are extracted as under:- i. Reprehensible conduct in taking away the hand bag containing clothes and cash from one G.S.Mani of Singanallur on 17.03.1992 at 01.30 hrs. in front of T.T.C.Bus stand, Coimbatore and absconded from the place. ii. Gross neglect of duty in absenting from roll call on 17.03.1992 at 1900 hrs. at AR/Coimbatore city and absenting from duty till 18.03.1992 at 0600 hrs without leave or permission. iii. Gross neglect of duty in absenting roll call on 18.03.1992 at 1900 hrs. and continuously absent from duty from 18.03.1992 - 1900 hrs. to 04.04.1992 without leave or permission. Since the petitioner has suffered an allegation of taking away the hand bag from one G.S.Mani and also suffered another allegation of absence from duty, the disciplinary authority, after completion of the enquiry, finding that all the charges were proved, finally imposed a punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, but that does not mean that the punishment though being minor, he is entitled to get the benefit of circular dated 26.09.2002. Though the circular dated 26.09.2002 says that the minor punishment, which is standing as impediment for getting promotion, needs to be cancelled to enable the officers concerned to get promotion, but in the case of the petitioner, the said benefit cannot be extended, the reason being that he has suffered major charges and was dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules, but fortunately, suffered a minor punishment for major charges. 8. The petitioner, being a member of the disciplined force, has conducted himself in a manner unknown and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force and for such acts, he has suffered a punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect. Though the punishment being a minor one, as rightly rejected by respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of circular dated 26.09.2002, issued by the DGP, as mentioned above, he was dealt with for major charges. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.