Judgment :- 1. The petitioner while working as Grade I Constable, was served with the charge memo vide P.R.No.21/2000 under Rule 3(b)of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule'). 2. The allegations against petitioner was that, he was found under the influence of liquor, on duty and that when the Sub-Inspector was signing the Beat Book, the petitioner took away the Beat Book and ran away. 3. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner, but the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped on the request of the prosecution. 4. The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo was not found to be satisfactory. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer to go into the charges. The Sub-Inspector of Police appeared as a prosecution witness and supported the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and was allowed to cross-examine the Sub-Inspector. 5. The Enquiry Officer, on appreciation of evidence, held the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The competent authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 6. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground that findings of the Enquiry Officer, on the face of it, are perverse, as there were no evidence to prove the charge of consumption of liquor, as the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination. 8. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the evidence led by the petitioner to prove that the petitioner was on night duty at the time of alleged incident, thus there were no occasion to take away the Beat Book. The enquiry proceedings, therefore stand vitiated, and the impugned order passed by the first Respondent on the basis of defective enquiry proceedings, cannot be sustained in law. 9. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the Sub-Inspector appeared in the enquiry proceedings and supported the version of prosecution. The witness withstood the cross-examination by the petitioner. 9. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the Sub-Inspector appeared in the enquiry proceedings and supported the version of prosecution. The witness withstood the cross-examination by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on appreciation of evidence, held the petitioner guilty of both charges. It cannot be said that findings of enquiry officer are based on no evidence. The contention of learned counsel that in absence of medical examinatios, no finding of guilt could be recorded also cannot be accepted, as it was open to enquiry officer to accept the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no material on record to attribute any motive to Sub-Inspector to falsely depose against petitioner. 10. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal to reappraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. This Court can interfere with the findings only if the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. If two views are possible then also findings can not be interfered with. The charges against the petitioner were serious in nature therefore, the punishment awarded also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charges, which may call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.