Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in C No.B2/PR15/03 (PR.No.41/H1/92) dated 12.2.2004 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner entered service as Grade II Police Constable in the year 1964. In the year 1972, he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable. Later, he was promoted as Head Constable in 1976. In the year 1978, he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and in the year 1982, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. While the petitioner was serving as Sub Inspector of Police at Aravankurichi Police Station, he registered a murder case in Crime No.124 of 1987 for the offence under Section 302 IPC in connection with the death of Pallapatti Samiyar. 3. The petitioner along with Inspector of Police had conducted investigation in the said case. Many villagers were interrogated and their statements were recorded. Ultimately, the petitioner arrayed one Paramasivam and other persons as accused and the said criminal case ended in conviction. But, the investigation in the said case led to the issuance of Charge Memo in PR.No.41/H1/92 dated 1.7.1992. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner threatened various villagers that they would be implicated in the murder case, if they do not pay bribe. The following allegations were made in the said Charge Memo: "i) Threatened one Muthusami of Pookarungalpatti that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.1,500/-for leaving him from the police station and detaining him in the police station from morning to evening. ii) Threatened one V.Sellamanaicker of Andipattikottai that he would be implicated in the murder case and demanded Rs.350/- and accepted Rs.300/-in the VAOs Office, Velapadi at Annanagar, Pallapatti. iii) Threatened one S.Maideen Batcha of Pallapatti that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.1,000/- and accepted Rs.500/-from him at Velambadi VAOs Office. iv) Threatened one K.Gurusami of Andipattikottai tht would be implicated in the murder case, demanded and accepted Rs.350/- at Aravakurichi Police Station. v) Threatened Thiru A.Gopal that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.500/- and accepted Rs.200/- from Thiru P.Gurusami, Father-in-law of Thiru A.Gopal at Aravakurichi police station". 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Perambalur conducted the enquiry. The witnesses were examined. v) Threatened Thiru A.Gopal that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.500/- and accepted Rs.200/- from Thiru P.Gurusami, Father-in-law of Thiru A.Gopal at Aravakurichi police station". 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Perambalur conducted the enquiry. The witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 12.8.2003 held that out of 5 charges, charges 1 to 3 were proved and the charges 4 and 5 were not proved. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.8.2003 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the impugned order dated 12.2.2004 in C.No.B2/PR.15/2003 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No.975 of 2004 (W.P.No.27232 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid dismissal order dated 12.2.2004 in C.No.B2/PR.15/2003. 5. The petitioner raised various grounds attacking the impugned order. The main ground is that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and it does not contain any reason. According to the petitioner, it is a cryptic order. 6. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. According to the respondent, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a proper manner and held that charges 1 to 3 were proved. Based on the proved charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 7. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and submitted that it is a cryptic one. He has also taken through the depositions relating to allegations 1 to 3 and submitted that the depositions were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and according to him, the respondent failed to consider the relevant materials, while passing the impugned order. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader has sought to sustain the dismissal order dated 12.2.2004 of the respondent based on the counter affidavit. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 10. The petitioner was issued Charge Memo in PR.No.41/H1/92 dated 1.7.1992. Five charges were made in the Charge Memo. Those charges were extracted above. Out of 5 charges, charges 1 to 3 were proved and 4 and 5 were not proved. While holding the charges 1 to 3 were proved, the Enquiry Officer recorded the following findings: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 11. Five charges were made in the Charge Memo. Those charges were extracted above. Out of 5 charges, charges 1 to 3 were proved and 4 and 5 were not proved. While holding the charges 1 to 3 were proved, the Enquiry Officer recorded the following findings: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 11. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not give any reason for arriving at a conclusion and it is a cryptic order. It is true that the Enquiry Officer need not write a detailed order like judicial order. But, he should record the reasons for his conclusion. He should analyse the evidence and he has to state which portion of the evidence is followed by him while recording such findings. But nothing is stated in his findings. The said findings are already extracted above. It is nothing but ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. 12. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Paragraph 5 of the impugned order passed by the respondent is extracted hereunder in this regard: "I have carefully and thoroughly gone through his FR, PR file and other connected records. With regard to 1st count of the charge, as per statement of 1st Prosecution Witness, the delinquent had made some corrections in the case diary of Aravakurichi PS Cr.No.124/87 u/s 302 and manipulated his note book entries. PW 2 Thiru Srinivasan, Inspector has stated in his statement that Batcha, Chellamma Naickar and Muthusamy were not enquired by him. P.W.10 Chellamma Naicker has clearly deposed about giving the bribe amount to the delinquent in VAOs Office, Annanagar, Pallapatti. P.W.6 Mohideen Batcha has stated in his statement that he gave the bribe amount to Village Administrative Officer, Velambadi on the instructions of the delinquent. Hence, the Enquiry Officer has held first three counts of the charge as proved by examining 11 P.Ws and filing 14 Prosecution Exhibits through P.Ws. He held fourth and fifth counts of charge as not proved as P.W. Gurusamy was no more and evidences of other P.Ws. could not establish the 4th count of the charge. P.W.8 Gopal failed to substantiate about the bribe amount paid to the delinquent by his father-in-law late Gurusamy as he was no more and could not be examined. He held fourth and fifth counts of charge as not proved as P.W. Gurusamy was no more and evidences of other P.Ws. could not establish the 4th count of the charge. P.W.8 Gopal failed to substantiate about the bribe amount paid to the delinquent by his father-in-law late Gurusamy as he was no more and could not be examined. Hence, I agree with the Enquiry Officer in holding first three counts of the charge as proved, remaining two counts of the charge as not proved and award the punishment of dismissal from service". 13. Further, the learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the evidence relating to the charges 1 to 3. As far as the charge No.2 is concerned, one Chellama Naicker was examined as P.W.10. He spoke different stories in the enquiry and the same were not taken note of by the Enquiry Officer. The second allegation was that the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.350/- from Chellama Naicker and accepted a sum of Rs.300/-in the Office of the Village Administrative Officer. The deposition of Chellama Naicker is totally different. Hence, I am of the view that the said charge is not proved. 14. The Charge No.3 is that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from one Maideen Batcha and accepted Rs.500/-for not implicating him in the murder case. The said Maideen Batcha was examined as P.W.6 in the departmental enquiry. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the evidence of P.W.6 and submitted that as per evidence of P.W.6 Maideen Batcha, he gave a sum of Rs.500/- to Mr.Narayanan, Village Administrative Officer. It is stated that thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer went into the room of the petitioner and came out. The said Maideen Batcha also did not tell the date on which he paid Rs.500/- to the Village Administrative Officer. 15. The first charage is that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- from one Muthusamy for not implicating him in the murder case and detained him in the Police Station from morning to evening. The said Muthusamy was examined as P.W.7 in the enquiry. In his deposition, he did not state at what time, he went to the Police Station for the purpose of investigation. He stated that he left the Police Station at 6.30 p.m after the investigation was over. The said Muthusamy was examined as P.W.7 in the enquiry. In his deposition, he did not state at what time, he went to the Police Station for the purpose of investigation. He stated that he left the Police Station at 6.30 p.m after the investigation was over. The first allegation was that he was detained in the police station during the day without giving food and the petitioner demanded Rs.1,500/-from Muthusamy and he told that he did not have money. The charge is that there was a demand from Muthusamy and there was no payment made by him. Based on the evidence of P.W.7, Muthusamy, and P.W.6, Maideen Batcha, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner has to be modified as compulsory retirement. 16. The said Maideen Batcha did not state that he paid the money to the petitioner. On the other hand, he stated that he paid the money of Rs.500/-to Village Administrative Officer. Likewise, the said Muthusamy also stated in his evidence that he did not pay Rs.1,500/- and he further stated that he was kept in the police station for a day during day time from morning to evening for the purpose of investigation. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence of Maideen Barcha and Muthuswamy, the punishment requires modification. 17. I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the same is a cryptic one. When the evidence is looked into, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the punishment of dismissal has to be modified into one of compulsory retirement. He also relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2007 made in W.P.No.4024 of 2005 (K.PERIYASAMY VS. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KAMARAJAR SALAI, CHENNAI) in this regard. In the above said judgment dated 1.10.2007 in W.P.(MD)No.4024 of 2005, the petitioner therein was charged for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.100/-and he was removed from service. The learned Single Judge of this Court modified the punishment of removal from service into compulsory retirement. The relevant portions of Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "Under the relevant Service Rules, the imposition of major penalty includes dismissal, compulsory retirement and removal from service. The learned Single Judge of this Court modified the punishment of removal from service into compulsory retirement. The relevant portions of Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: "Under the relevant Service Rules, the imposition of major penalty includes dismissal, compulsory retirement and removal from service. In the present case, considering the fact that the petitioner had worked for more than 29 years there being no previous adverse remarks noted by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority ought to have borne in mind that even if he wants to impose a major penalty as to why he had preferred the penalty of removal from service and not the compulsory retirement. In case of compulsory retirement, at least the petitioner is entitled for terminal benefits and that has not been done in this case. Even in appeal and revision, though the ground of disproportionality was raised, that was not answered by the appellate authority but the revisional authority rejected it by a one sentence order. This Court is of the view that while the petitioners misconduct cannot be condoned and he must be imposed only with major penalty, but, however, considering the penalty now imposed, it is clear that it will result in serious consequences of not only depriving the petitioner his employment but also the very survival of the family will be in question. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision referred to above, this Court is of the view that punishment of removal from service requires modification. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22983 of 2005, disposed on 13.8.2007, (V.C.RAJAMANICKAM V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER) and the following passage found in paragraph 18 of the said order is reproduced below: "As contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has put in a long number of years of service and there is no adverse entries in his annual confidential reports and in such circumstances if the punishment of dismissal from service is imposed not only the petitioner but his entire family will be put to great hardship. Therefore we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if punishment of dismissal from service is modified into one of compulsory retirement since both the penalties are major penalties and the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be disproportionate and not commensurate with the act of delinquency of the petitioner. Hence we modify the dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement. Under the above circumstances, the punishment of removal from service ordered against the petitioner is modified into one of compulsory retirement and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. In all other aspects, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. The petitioner is hereby directed to submit his pension papers within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed to process the same and pass final orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. However, there will be no order as to costs ". 18. The facts of the above said judgment would squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this case also, the petitioner served 40 years of service, but his retirement benefits are deprived due to the dismissal order passed by the respondent. Taking into account the nature of evidence in the enquiry and in the light of the above said judgment, I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner has to be modified into one of compulsory retirement. The respondent is hereby directed to pay pension payable to the petitioner pursuant to the compulsory retirement. 19. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.