Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable. He was issued with a charge memo dated 19.03.2003 under Rule 3(b) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)Rules, 1955 alleging that on 02.02.2003 at 14.00 hours in a drunken mood, the petitioner assaulted one Karuppiah in Kallimandabam bus stop. Further, allegation was made that he absented from duty without permission on 02.02.2003. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindugul,Rural Sub Division conducted an enquiry and gave his report dated 09.06.2003 holding that the charges were established. Based on the same, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 07.08.2003. The petitioner had preferred an appeal on 08.09.2003 to the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Whileso, the petitioner filed original application in O.A.No.2133 of 2002 questioning the removal order. During the pendency of the original application, the appeal was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 07.10.2003. 3. The respondents filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations. 4. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the original application in O.A.No.3522 of 2003 was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.12538 of 2007. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though three eye-witnesses were examined apart from the alleged victim Karuppiah, those three eye witnesses did not support the department and they turned hostile. Inspite of the same, relying on the sole evidence of victim PW1, the enquiry officer recorded his finding. Therefore, the enquiry officer committed error in relying on the sole testimony of PW1 and in recording a finding of guilt. 7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has sought to sustain the dismissal order based on the reply affidavit. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 9. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted a public by name, Karuppiah on 02.02.2003 at Kallimanthayam bus stand. There was no provocation from Karuppiah. However, the petitioner assaulted one Karuppiah on his cheek and hip with the hands and legs in drunken mood apart from using abusive language. Karuppiah was examined in the enquiry as PW1. 9. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted a public by name, Karuppiah on 02.02.2003 at Kallimanthayam bus stand. There was no provocation from Karuppiah. However, the petitioner assaulted one Karuppiah on his cheek and hip with the hands and legs in drunken mood apart from using abusive language. Karuppiah was examined in the enquiry as PW1. His deposition in the enquiry is as follows:- P.W.1 Karuppiah, S/o Vaiyapuri of Sivagiripettai He is the complainant and he deposed that on 2.2.2003 when he was in Kallimandayam sub stop on Sunday about 2.00 p.m. the petitioner in a drunken mood using filthy language assaulted him which was witnessed by Kasi, Shankar. He had also deposed that he gave complaint to the Police Station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram examined him and his statement has been marked as Ex.P1 given before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer. 1. 10. It is true that three other witnesses namely, PW2-Rajendran, PW3-Kasi and PW4Shankar, who were said to have seen the incident, did not support the charge. Though they made a statement in support of the charge during the preliminary enquiry, in the regular enquiry they went back on the statement made in the preliminary enquiry. They were cross examined in the enquiry. Their version was that they did not see the incident and that no such incident took place. 11. In the departmental enquiry, the only evidence of victim is sufficient to hold that the charge of assault is proved. Therefore, I am not agreeing with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority committed error in accepting the only evidence of victim, who was assaulted. Further more, the appellate authority also has gone into the entire matter and has held that it is not a fit case wherein, leniency can be shown to the petitioner. Paragraph No. 4 of the appellate order is extracted as follows:- 4. I have gone through the appeal petition, PR file and connected records carefully and meticulously. On perusal of his past record of service he has earned five punishments in his career. The minute drawing officer has held the charges as proved through the evidences of Pws 1 5 to 11 and prosecution exhibits 1 to 20 filed during the oral enquiry. On perusal of his past record of service he has earned five punishments in his career. The minute drawing officer has held the charges as proved through the evidences of Pws 1 5 to 11 and prosecution exhibits 1 to 20 filed during the oral enquiry. The Pws 2, 3 & 4 were turned hostile during the oral enquiry. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, ordered the punishment of "Removal from Service". The delinquency is grave in nature. The punishment awarded in this case is adequate to the gravity of charges. No case is made out for cancellation. If such indisciplined persons are allowed to continue in this force, no doubt, it diminishes the image of the police force in general. Hence, the appeal is rejected. 12. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.