Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 30.6.2009, and confirmed by the first respondent, in his proceedings, dated 7.10.2009, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, on the petitioner. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the Police Department, as a police constable, on 25.10.1993. Thereafter, he had rendered 16 years of unblemished service. While he was in service, he had married one Aswini, on 8.9.2004. After the marriage, his wife Aswini had lived with the petitioner, for a period of one month only. When she was living with the petitioner, she used to quarrel with the petitioner, often. While so, on 21.1.2006, suspecting his wife's character, the petitioner had picked up a quarrel with her. Thereafter, the petitioner's wife had returned to her parents' house. While so, on 24.1.2006, she had preferred a complaint against the petitioner, on the instigation of her parents, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. A case has been registered against the petitioner, in Crime No.38/2006, on the file of the Seven wells Police Station. He had been arrested, on 25.1.2006 and released on bail, on 27.1.2006. 4. It has been further stated that, on 27.1.2006, the petitioner had been placed under suspension, by the second respondent, for having involved in the criminal case. On 26.4.2006, the second respondent had issued a charge memo, to the petitioner, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The charge memo had been approved by the first respondent, on 5.5.2006, and it had been served on the petitioner, on 29.5.2006. Even though the first respondent is vested with the disciplinary power, to proceed against the petitioner, the second respondent had framed the charge memo and had submitted the same to the first respondent, for approval. As such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is invalid in the eye of law. 5. It had been further stated that the charge against the petitioner had been framed on the allegation that he had assaulted his wife and had caused simple injuries, on 21.1.2006. On the same allegation, the petitioner had been prosecuted, in C.C.No.3523/2006, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It had been further stated that the charge against the petitioner had been framed on the allegation that he had assaulted his wife and had caused simple injuries, on 21.1.2006. On the same allegation, the petitioner had been prosecuted, in C.C.No.3523/2006, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the petitioner's wife, Aswini, had deposed as P.W.1, stating that she had given a false complaint against the petitioner, due to the previous resentment she had against him. She had also stated that she was not aware of the contents of the complaint. Therefore, the criminal case registered against the petitioner, in Crime No.38/2006, had ended in a honourable acquittal, on 16.7.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated in service. 6. It had been further stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ayanavaram Sub-Division, Chennai, had been appointed as the enquiry officer. During the oral enquiry, the petitioner's wife Aswini had denied the allegation against the petitioner mentioned in the charge memo. Similarly, her father, who was P.W.2, had also turned hostile. P.W.3 and P.W.4 had also not stated anything against the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.5 had been dispensed with, as he was not traceable. The prosecution witnesses P.W.6 to P.W.10, are official witnesses and they had nothing to do with the incident alleged to have been taken place, on 21.1.2006. However, the enquiry officer had held that the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved in his report, dated 21.12.2008. As such, it is clear that the enquiry officer had held that the charges had been proved, based on the statements alleged to have been recorded during the preliminary enquiry. Since, the statement had been recorded behind the back of the petitioner, they cannot be relied upon to prove the charges levelled against him. Further, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses, who had been examined during the preliminary enquiry. The statement had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner. Hence, the findings of the enquiry officer are unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. It had been further stated that, on 8.4.2009, the petitioner had submitted his further explanation on the enquiry report, to the second respondent. The statement had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner. Hence, the findings of the enquiry officer are unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. It had been further stated that, on 8.4.2009, the petitioner had submitted his further explanation on the enquiry report, to the second respondent. However, the disciplinary authority, without properly considering the petitioner's further representations, had imposed the punishment of postponement of increment, for two years, without cumulative effect, on 30.6.2009. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent, on 1.8.2008. The first respondent, by his proceedings, dated 7.10.2009, had confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, dated 30.6.2009. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the writ petition is liable to be rejected, in limine, in view of the fact that the petitioner had not exhausted his further right of appeal and thereafter, a revision, as provided under the relevant provisions of law. Based on the allegation that the petitioner had assaulted his wife, causing her minor injuries, a case, in crime No.38/2006, had been registered against the petitioner, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, on the file of the Seven wells Police Station, on 24.1.2006. He had been arrested, on 25.1.2006, and remanded to custody. Later, he had been released on bail, on 27.1.2006. As the petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody, for more than 24 hours, he had been suspended, on 27.1.2006. 10. It had been further stated that a criminal case, in crime No.38 of 2006 had been taken up for trial, in C.C.No.3523 of 2006. The criminal case against the petitioner had ended in acquittal, on 16.7.2007. However, the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable, as it had been passed on the benefit of doubt granted in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry had been held against the petitioner, based on the charges levelled against him. As the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved, based on the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the punishment of postponement of increment, for two years, without cumulative effect, had been awarded, by an order of the second respondent, dated 30.6.2009. Thereafter, an enquiry had been held against the petitioner, based on the charges levelled against him. As the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved, based on the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the punishment of postponement of increment, for two years, without cumulative effect, had been awarded, by an order of the second respondent, dated 30.6.2009. The appeal preferred by the petitioner had been rejected, by the order passed by the first respondent, on 7.10.2009, confirming the order passed by the second respondent. 11. It had been further stated that the enquiry had been conducted based on the charges levelled against the petitioner, by way of a charge memo. The enquiry had been conducted in a fair and proper manner, by following the principles of natural justice. Both the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority, had found that the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Therefore, the petitioner had been awarded the punishment of postponement of increment, for two years, without cumulative effect. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are based on the evidence available on record and in accordance with the established principles of law. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to law and they have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. It had also been stated that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the evidence recorded during the preliminary enquiry had been wrongly taken into account for finding that the petitioner had contravened the procedures established by law. 13. It had also been stated that the submissions recorded during the preliminary inquiry cannot be taken into account after a detailed oral enquiry had been held. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (i) NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA & OTHERS (1997 (1) SCC 229). (ii) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. P.C. JAIN ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ). (iii) S.DHANASEKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADURAI CITY ( 2006 (4) CTC 184 ). 15. STATE OF MAHARASTRA & OTHERS (1997 (1) SCC 229). (ii) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. P.C. JAIN ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ). (iii) S.DHANASEKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADURAI CITY ( 2006 (4) CTC 184 ). 15. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner had been awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for two years, without cumulative effect, as the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved during the enquiry. Further, the allegation of the petitioner that the impugned orders had been passed by the respondent contrary to the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained, as he had been given sufficient opportunity to represent his case. Further, the punishment had been imposed on the petitioner, based on the evidence available on record. Further, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, in C.C.No.3523/2006, was not a honourable acquittal as it was only based on the benefit of doubt being given to the petitioner. As such, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be held to be valid. 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner, by way of the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 30.6.2009, and confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 7.10.2009, cannot be held to be invalid in the eye of law. 17. The charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved during the enquiry, that had been held, based on the charge levelled against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, or based on no evidence. In fact, there was sufficient evidence available on record, for the enquiry officer to arrive at his conclusion that the criminal case registered against the petitioner, in C.C.No.3523/2006, had ended in acquittal, only on the benefit of doubt being given to the petitioner and it was not a honourable acquittal, as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, there was sufficient evidence available on record, for the enquiry officer to arrive at his conclusion that the criminal case registered against the petitioner, in C.C.No.3523/2006, had ended in acquittal, only on the benefit of doubt being given to the petitioner and it was not a honourable acquittal, as claimed by the petitioner. As such, it cannot be said that the punishment of postponement of increment, for two years, without cumulative effect, imposed on the petitioner, is disproportionate in nature. In such circumstances, it is clear that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.