Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned orders, passed by the respondents 1 to 3 vide P.R.No.51/2001 dated 09.05.2002; C.No.B3/AP 26/2002 dated 28.10.2002 and R.C.No.287511/AP I(2) 2002 dated 30.05.2003 respectively. 2. The petitioner was recruited as Police Constable Grade-II in the South Arcot District in the year 1976 and was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1995 and upgraded as Head Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner, during his service, received 28 rewards without any adverse entry. 3. The petitioner, while serving as Head Constable in Avalurpet Police Station from 20.01.2001, was on para duty in the Police Station along with the Head Constable 751 Paneerselvam. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jayasankar, left the Police Station and directed the petitioner to remain in Station till the other Constable return for night Bandobust. 4. In the midnight, a phone call was received in the Police Station, stating that in Avalur Sandy Street, there was a group clash between two groups of persons. The petitioner,immediately, rushed to the scene of occurrence to avoid deterioration of law and order situation. 5. The case of the petitioner is that on his visit, he found few persons in the suspicious position near the residence of one Tmt.Veerammal and the petitioner questioned her, to which, she replied that number of persons visit her house. She was stated to be notorious bootlegger detained for sale of illicit liquor on many occasions. The petitioner questioned all the persons standing at the spot and also questioned Tmt.Veerammal. 6. The husband of Veerammal filed a complaint, alleging that the petitioner entered his house in drunken condition and assaulted his wife Veerammal on 01.11.2001. On the complaint, the petitioner was suspended on 08.11.2001 without conducting preliminary enquiry. The Sub-Inspector of Police was reprimanded for not being found in duty in Police Station. 7. The case of the petitioner is that the Sub-Inspector of Police gave a false statement in the preliminary enquiry, which resulted in issuance of charge memo against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as under: "1. Unbecoming conduct in entering into the house of one Veerammal, W/o.Govindasamy, Oddarkudisai without uniform and not in duty, in a drunken mood and asking unnecessary questions on the mid-night of 01.11.2001; 2. High-handed action in beating the lady, Veerammal and her son-in-law, Settu with hands; and 3. The charges levelled against the petitioner read as under: "1. Unbecoming conduct in entering into the house of one Veerammal, W/o.Govindasamy, Oddarkudisai without uniform and not in duty, in a drunken mood and asking unnecessary questions on the mid-night of 01.11.2001; 2. High-handed action in beating the lady, Veerammal and her son-in-law, Settu with hands; and 3. Reprehensible and unbecoming conduct in misguiding the S.I. with false information to take action against Veerammal and others." 8. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, wherein, all the witnesses were said to have turned hostile. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, held that allegations against the petitioner, having entered the house in drunken mood and beating the lady Veerammal and her son-in-law Settu was not proved. However, the Enquiry Officer held that the allegations against the petitioner being not in duty stood proved from the facts that the petitioner was not in uniform at the place of occurrence of the crime. It may be noticed here that this was not a charge against the petitioner. 9. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the competent authority and consequently, major punishment of downgrading of the petitioner with two stages with cumulative effect was ordered. 10. In appeal, the order was confirmed and the mercy petition filed by the petitioner was also upheld. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders, by contending that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence inasmuch as all the witnesses admittedly turned hostile, and the allegation on the petitioner being in drunken stage and having beaten the lady, was not proved. The contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioner stood exonerated of charges levelled, but was found guilty of charge not levelled against him. 12. The petitioner has been held guilty of not being present in duty merely on preponderance of probability and on basis of inference that in the statement given by Tmt.Veerammal, it is stated that she caught hold of the banian of the petitioner, which showed that the petitioner was not in uniform. The receipt of phone call at Police Station in midnight is not disputed. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was not in duty, therefore, on the face of it, is perverse. The receipt of phone call at Police Station in midnight is not disputed. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was not in duty, therefore, on the face of it, is perverse. Though this Court cannot reappraise the evidence to record a different finding than the one recorded by the authorities, but at the same time, if the findings are perverse on the face of record, this Court can always interfere with the findings recorded. 13. In view of the proved facts on record, which also stands admitted to by enquiry officer, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was on duty, but at the same time, it is also proved that the petitioner was not in uniform, which shows that he performed his duty in casual, which cannot be appreciated, but at the same time, the charges, as framed against the petitioner, have not been proved. 14. This therefore leads to a question, "as to whether major punishment awarded to petitioner can be sustained in law". 15. This Court is aware that High Court, while reviewing disciplinary action under Article 226 cannot act as appellate authority on merit. Only scope under Article 226 for interference with punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is when High Court finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to gravity of misconduct, committed by the delinquent. In that case, Court can invoke doctrine of proportionality. In order to invoke this principle, Court is to see the gravity of offence and previous antecedent of the employee. 16. The facts and circumstances show that the major punishment awarded to petitioner cannot be sustained in law being shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct. The enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of charges framed against him. In order to invoke this principle, Court is to see the gravity of offence and previous antecedent of the employee. 16. The facts and circumstances show that the major punishment awarded to petitioner cannot be sustained in law being shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct. The enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of charges framed against him. The findings by Enquiry Officer that petitioner was not on duty, on face of it, is perverse, as it is not disputed that the petitioner had gone to place of occurrence on receipt of telephone at Police Station, therefore, this Court feels that it is a fit case to invoke doctrine of proportionality and reduce the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years and that the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments for two years to the one into minor punishment of reduction in time scale by two stages for two years without cumulative effect, which shall not postpone future increments. No costs.