JUDGMENT :- 1. The Original Application in O.A.No.5203 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is now W.P.No.8534 of 2007, before this Court. 2. The petitioner was employed as Grade II Police Constable. He was unauthorisedly absent from 02.01.1996. Hence, he was issued with a charge memo dated 14.12.1996 and an enquiry was conducted. Based on the Enquiry Report, he was removed from service by an order dated 11.06.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, praying to quash the order of the first respondent dated 11.06.1997. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal dated 19.08.2002 to the Appellate Authority belatedly. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal dated 11.09.2002 stating that the petitioner has not put forth any valid reasons. Para 3 of the said order is extracted hereunder: "3.I have gone through the appeal petitioner, P.R.file and other connected records. The appellant has not put forth any valid points for consideration. Further he has not submitted any valid records to prove that he has taken treatment for his mental disorder. His explanation is not convincing. Therefore, I decline to interfere and the appeal is rejected." 4. In my view, the order of the Appellate Authority is not in conformity with the Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. As per Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the Appellate Authority should consider whether the penalty is adequate or inadequate. But, the Appellate Authority did not consider the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Honourable First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.58 of 2011, dated 27.01.2011, which is extracted hereunder: "2.The appellant/writ petitioner, who was serving as Grade-II Police Constable in the Police Department at Kancheepuram, was proceeded against departmentally on the charge that he remained absent from duty for a period of 21 days. The Enquiry Officer held the charge against the appellant as proved. In view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, as also the fact that the appellant had earlier deserted the force on three occasions, the disciplinary authority, viz. the second respondent herein, passed an order of dismissal from service against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer held the charge against the appellant as proved. In view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, as also the fact that the appellant had earlier deserted the force on three occasions, the disciplinary authority, viz. the second respondent herein, passed an order of dismissal from service against the appellant. The appellant challenged the same by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who held that the appellant, being employed in the Armed Reserve, was expected to maintain strict discipline and in view of his past conduct, the punishment of dismissal cannot be termed as excessive or disproportionate. 3.Afterhearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, we are prima facie of the view that the punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and it is in fact, shocking the conscience of this Court. We, therefore, allow this writ appeal, set aside the impugned judgement passed by the learned single Judge and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority, viz. the second respondent herein to re-consider the matter with regard to the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant and to take a decision within six weeks from today. It is made clear that in the event the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant is reduced, he shall not make any claim with regard to the wages for the period he has not performed his duty, but he continuity in service will not be affected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed." In these circumstances, the order dated 11.09.2002 of the second respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to consider afresh, in the light of the decision of the Honourable First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.58 of 2011, dated 27.01.2011. The Second respondent is also directed to complete the above said exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.