Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in the Armed Reserve at Coimbatore District on 17.11.1988, and thereafter transferred to Taluk Police in the year 1999. The petitioner was promoted as Grade-I PC in June 2001. He is recipient of 25 rewards. 2. While the petitioner was serving as Grade-I PC at Negamam Police Station during June 2001, the opposition called for a bandh, to condemn the arrest of the former Chief Minister on 29.06.2001. The petitioner was on bandobust duty along with the Inspector in the previous night, therefore, being tired, was taking rest at the Negamam Police Station. 3. The Superintendent of Police visited the Police Station and found the petitioner and other Police officials resting at the Police Station, which according to the petitioner was due to day long bandobust work. 4. The petitioner was issued show cause notice vide PR No.122/2001 dated 30.09.2001under Rule 3(a) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, on the allegation that the petitioner, while having been deputed to bandobust duty, was sleeping at the Police Station. 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation to allegations levelled against him, by taking a stand, that the petitioner was not a para Constable in Police Station so to be alert all the time and that it was after doing bandobust work, that he was taking rest at the Police Station. 6. The defense of the petitioner was that unless the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Para duty or Sentry, no fault can be found with his sleeping at the Police Station. 7. The explanation submitted by petitioner was not accepted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam Sub-Division, who was appointed to look into the allegations to hold primary enquiry. 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted minutes of enquiry to the Disciplinary Authority on 03.10.2001. The petitioner along with other Police Constables and Inspector of Police were found guilty of resting at the Police Station, therefore, the petitioner was imposed minor punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 9. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of punishment, but approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai to challenge the impugned order of minor punishment. 10. 9. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of punishment, but approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai to challenge the impugned order of minor punishment. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the grounds; (i) that before passing an order of punishment, the petitioner was not supplied a copy of enquiry finding, therefore, the impugned order, being violative of principle of natural justice, cannot be sustained; (ii) that the petitioner was on duty as Driver and not as Sentry or on para duty, therefore, sleeping in Police Station could not be said to be misconduct to attract punishment for misconduct. 11. On consideration, I find no force in this petition. It is not even disputed by petitioner that he was found sleeping, and that show cause notice was issued under Rule 3(a) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was only asked to record minutes regarding the reply submitted by petitioner, for the convenience of the competent authority, to appreciate the stand of petitioner before imposing punishment under Rule 3(a) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules. No enquiry was held, as the competent authority was only to consider the explanation submitted to the allegations before imposing minor punishment, which has been done in this case. The contention of learned counsel, that non supply of enquiry report vitiates the punishment, therefore, cannot be accepted, specially when it is not disputed by the petitioner, that he was found sleeping at the Police Station. 12. The other ground of challenge, that petitioner after bandobust duty, was entitled to rest at the Police Station, cannot be accepted, as no rule or regulation has been shown, which entitles the Driver / Constable to sleep at the Police Station, during duty hours. 13. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot substitute its opinion, with that of the competent authority, as the findings recorded to impose minor punishments are based on the clear admission, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse, nor punishment awarded can be said to be disproportionate to the proved allegations, so as to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, to interfere with the quantum of punishment. 14. No merits. Dismissed. 15. No costs.