Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable on 12.01.1970 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner has won more than 40 awards in his service career. 2. The petitioner was served with charge memo by the Superintendent of Police, Sankaran Koil under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules for having links with one Durai, wine shop owner and other wine shop dealers and received bribe from them for the sale of liquor illegally. 3. The petitioner challenged the charge memo, on the ground that charges levelled against the petitioner was vague and not specific therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to effectively defend himself against vague charges. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge memo denying the allegations levelled against him. 4. The stand of the petitioner was that Thiru Durai was not liquor dealer rather Lingaraj Pandian was the liquor dealer. The petitioner in support of his defence, placed on record Licence Ex.P1 issued in favour of Lingaraj Pandian, to show that the allegation was patently false. 5. The case of the petitioner is that clarification was given by the department that Mr.Durai is the brother in law of the Lingaraj Pandian. Inspite of that, charge memo was not modified or cancelled. The competent authority on the other hand, did not agree, with the explanation of the petitioner, and appointed an enquiry officer to go into the charges. 6. The enquiry officer did not examine any prosecution witnesses and held the petitioner guilty of charges, merely by rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioner, by placing reliance on Ex.P1, the document relied upon by the petitioner to show that the allegations were patently false thus not sustainable in law. 7. The factum that no prosecution witnesses were examined and that no documentary evidence was produced before enquiry officer is not disputed. Once it is not disputed that the enquiry officer did not examine any witness in support of the prosecution, the enquiry report cannot be sustained in law being perverse, being based on no evidence. 8. The competent authority also blindly accepted the enquiry report, though on the face of it was perverse having been based on no evidence whatsoever. By accepting the enquiry report, the competent authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect. 8. The competent authority also blindly accepted the enquiry report, though on the face of it was perverse having been based on no evidence whatsoever. By accepting the enquiry report, the competent authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect. The appellate authority also did not go into the merit of the controversy in deciding whether punishment awarded could be sustained or not, it only reduced the punishment from stoppage of 3 increments to one increment without cumulative effect. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the orders are totally arbitrary, being based on the enquiry report, which on the face of it is perverse, thus not sustainable in law. 10. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader by contending that the punishment awarded is only minor which could even be imposed on considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the punishment awarded to the petitioner on the proved misconduct. 11. This contention of the learned counsel for the State, cannot be accepted. It is only in case where an employee is charged under Rule 3(a), that procedure followed by the enquiry officer can be adopted, by the competent authority i.e. to issue show cause notice and after considering the reply impose minor punishment. Once an enquiry under Rule 3(b) was held, the enquiry officer could not hold the petitioner guilty of charges in the absence of any evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, is right in contending that the findings of the enquiry officer is on the face of it perverse therefore, not sustainable in law. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of punishment are quashed. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from this order. No cost.