ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order of the respondent herein passed in G.O. (2D) No. 183, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 21.5.2002 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and the consequential order passed in G.O. (2D) No. 344, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 13.10.2003 rejecting the petitioner‘s revision petition and quash the same with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 25.5.1988. Subsequently, he was selected as Sub Inspector of Police under 20% departmental quota on 2.6.1997. While he was working at Padalur Police Station, on 20.6.1999, 5 girl students viz., Thenmozhi, Mathiazhagi, Rajalakshmi, Ruby and Selvi who were studying in Government Higher Secondary School, Padalur, were found missing. In this regard, a compliant was lodged by one S. Gopal on 22.6.1999 at Padalur Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No. 199 of 1999. Relating to the said complaint, the petitioner enquired one Muthulakshmi and others on 25.6.1999. The said enquiry of Muthulakshmi became the subject matter of the Charge Memo dated 9.6.2000 and the said Charge Memo dated 9.6.2000 was issued to the petitioner in P.R. No. 76 of 2000 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, alleging that the said Muthulakshmi was examined in the police station at 00.30 hours on 25.6.1999 contrary to the Rules. An enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer held that the charges were not proved. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter dated 18.10.2001 enclosing the findings of the enquiry officer and sought explanation thereon from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.12.2001. Thereafter, the respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect in G.O. (2D) No. 183 Home (Pol.2) Department, dated 21.5.2002. The petitioner filed review petition before the respondent and the same was rejected in G.O. (2D). No. 344, Home (Police II) Department, dated 13.10.2003. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 1645 of 2004 (W.P. No. 18334 of 2007) to quash the impugned orders passed in G.O. (2D) No. 183, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 21.5.2002 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and G.O. (2D) No. 344, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 13.10.2003, with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 1645 of 2004 (W.P. No. 18334 of 2007) to quash the impugned orders passed in G.O. (2D) No. 183, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 21.5.2002 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and G.O. (2D) No. 344, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 13.10.2003, with all consequential benefits. 3. The respondent filed the counter affidavit refuting the allegations. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that after following all the procedures, the punishment was inflicted on the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondent and hence, he sought dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the witnesses supported the case of the defence and therefore, the respondent was not correct in passing the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. He further submitted that there is no evidence to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Government has held that bringing a lady for examination during night hours that day too at 00.30 hours is in violation of proviso to Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C and therefore, there is nothing wrong in inflicting the punishment. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner enquired one Muthulakshmi at 00.30 hours on 25.6.2009. The case of the petitioner is that the said Muthulakshmi came voluntarily to the police station and therefore, he could not be found fault with. However, the respondent rejected the same stating that there is a mandate in the statute that as per the proviso to Section 160(1) Cr.P.C, no woman shall be required to furnish information (i.e to be investigated) at any place other than the place in which she resides, but, the petitioner examined the lady at 00.30 hours on 25.6.2009 at the police station. When the statute under Section 46(4) Cr.P.C contemplates that no woman shall be arrested beyond sun set, it is the bounden duty of the Police Officer to go to the residence of the woman and take statement from the woman before sun set. When the statute under Section 46(4) Cr.P.C contemplates that no woman shall be arrested beyond sun set, it is the bounden duty of the Police Officer to go to the residence of the woman and take statement from the woman before sun set. Hence, examination of woman during night hours is contrary to the proviso to Sections 160(1) and 46(4) Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.