Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are Head Constables and they have come up with the above writ petitions challenging the orders of penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 2. Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. On 27.8.1990, a team of policemen led by the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to H8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station conducted a prohibition raid and apprehended one Ravi. The team of policemen included the petitioners in these writ petitions. On the ground that the said Ravi agreed to identify other persons involved in illicit arrack business, the entire team of policemen went along with the said Ravi. According to the police team, there was a police patrol vehicle parked in a place known as Kalyani Chetty Nagar. Fearing that he might be taken to the police station in the vehicle, the said Ravi started running. While crossing the Ennore Express Road, he was fatally knocked down by a container lorry. 4. Since the said Ravi was in the custody of the police team, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under P.S.O. 145. On the basis of his report, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.401 Public (Law and Order) Department dated 31.3.1999, directing the initiation of departmental proceedings against the members of the police team. 5. In pursuance of the said directions, charge memos were issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) against all the members of the police team. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (South) was nominated as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. On the basis of the said report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority namely the Commissioner of Police were dated 31.5.2001. The appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Director General of Police by orders dated 22.7.2002. The petitioners thereafter filed mercy petitions to the Chief Minister during the grievance day. Those mercy petitions were rejected by orders dated 15.3.2004. Simultaneously, the petitioners had filed petitions to the Government on 29.4.2003. The appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Director General of Police by orders dated 22.7.2002. The petitioners thereafter filed mercy petitions to the Chief Minister during the grievance day. Those mercy petitions were rejected by orders dated 15.3.2004. Simultaneously, the petitioners had filed petitions to the Government on 29.4.2003. Contending that they were not disposed of for a long time, the petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2788 and 2789 of 2006. The said writ petitions were disposed of by orders dated 10.6.2010 directing the Government to consider the petitions filed by the petitioners and pass orders within three months. In pursuance of the said orders, the Government considered the petitions and dismissed the same by orders dated 25.2.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up with the above petitions. 6. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds : (i) that the charge framed against the petitioners was vague in as much as the part played by each member of the police team is not detailed; (ii) that the respondents failed to order a joint enquiry in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules; (iii) that the charge framed against the petitioners, is fit to be only under Rule 3(a) relating to minor penalties and not to major penalty under Rule 3(b); (iv) that the findings are totally perverse and based on no evidence; and (v) that the punishment is not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that could be held proved. 7. But, in so far as the first contention is concerned, the charge framed against the petitioners is identically worded. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner in the first writ petition alone is extracted as follows : "That the said Thiru Muniraj, Gr.I. PC 10528, H.8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station Law and Order, on 27/ 28.8.1998 night he was on night rounds on the information received by Tr.J.Amaldoss, S.I., H.8. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner in the first writ petition alone is extracted as follows : "That the said Thiru Muniraj, Gr.I. PC 10528, H.8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station Law and Order, on 27/ 28.8.1998 night he was on night rounds on the information received by Tr.J.Amaldoss, S.I., H.8. (L&O) about the transport of illicit arrack, you accompanied with S.I. and HC 4317, Gr.I. PCs.7359, 10425, conducted prohibition raid at Apparsamy Koil Street, Thiruvottiyur caught hold of one old prohibition offender namely Ravi, S/O Varadharajan, No.78, Appar Nagar, Sadagopamudali Street, Thiruvottiyur and on the confession given by Ravi stating that he along with one other person transported I.D. arrack and he volunteered that he would identify him if he was taken by them and so did the S.I. and party. On seeing patrol vehicle 36 near Kalyani Chetty Nagar, fearing that he would be taken in that vehicle, the said Ravi gave a slip and ran across the Ennore Express Road but met with an accident against a container lorry (TMT 7468) causing instant death. Thereby the delinquent Gr.I. Constable has failed to take utmost care in accompanying the said Ravi and thus violated Section 24 of the TNSPO Conduct Rules and amounts to gross neglect of duty." While except the last line, the rest of the charge contains only the narration of facts, the last line of the charge accuses the petitioners of failure to take utmost care in accompanying the deceased. In other words, it is a charge of neglect of duty. 8. When the charge itself is one of neglect of duty, I do not know how the charge could have been more clearer than what it is. The fact that the petitioners were members of the team, which conducted the prohibition raid, the fact that they apprehended the said Ravi, the fact that he was taken by the team for apprehending other people, the fact that he attempted to escape from the team and that in the process, he got fatally knocked down by a container lorry are the admitted facts. From out of these admitted facts, two inferences were possible. One inference is that the deceased was driven away by the Police Authorities. The other inference is that he gave a slip and ran away. From out of these admitted facts, two inferences were possible. One inference is that the deceased was driven away by the Police Authorities. The other inference is that he gave a slip and ran away. The second inference, which is more favourable to the petitioners and the other members of the police team, has been chosen by the Department, exhibiting a sense of fairness in their approach. Therefore, it is impossible to think that the charge was very vague. 9. The contention that the role played by each member of the police team should have been brought out in the charge cannot be accepted. If the Department has chosen to frame more serious charges against the members of the team, it is only then that the role played by each one of them would have become relevant. Say for instance, if a charge had been framed that the deceased was beaten up while he was leading them to the hide outs of other persons involved in bootlegging, then it is necessary for the respondents to pinpoint, which member of the team beat up the deceased and to what extent. No such allegation is made against any member of the team. All the members are collectively accused of failure to exercise due care and diligence while accompanying an accused, which led to the unfortunate incident. For the charge of negligence of duty, there can be no further clarity. Therefore, the first contention is rejected. 10. The second contention relates to Rule 4A of the Rules. Rule 4A of the Rules reads as follows : "In any case, where more than one member of the service are involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in rule 2 shall be the authority in respect of the member who holds the highest post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. Provided that in the case where a member of the service and a member of other service are jointly involved or whose cases are inter connected, the Government shall be the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against the member of the service and impose any of the penalties specified in rule 2 and in such cases the administrative department of Secretariat in respect of the member who holds the highest post will initiate such disciplinary proceedings and issue final orders after complying with the entire procedure laid down in these rules." 11. A careful reading of Rule 4A would show that it consists of two parts, one in the main part and the other in the proviso. The main part deals with cases where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against more than one member of the same service, namely Police Subordinate Service. The second part contained in the proviso relates to cases where disciplinary proceedings are initiated not only against the members of the Police Subordinate Service, but also against the members of "Other Services". In this case, all persons against whom the proceedings were initiated, including the petitioners were only the members of the Police Subordinate Service. Therefore, the proviso (second part of Rule 4A) has no application. 12. The first part of Rule 4A imposes two obligations, namely, (i) that the Authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings shall be Authority in respect of the member, who holds the highest post; and (ii) that the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. 13. In this case, it is the Commissioner of Police, who passed final orders against all the members of the team. It is not the contention of the members that he was not the Authority competent to initiate proceedings against that member of the team, who held the highest post. But, the only contention is that the disciplinary proceedings should have been held jointly against all of them, as required by the last portion of the main part of the Rule. 14. But in my view, the said contention cannot hold good at least for two reasons. They are (i) that the petitioners did not seek a joint enquiry at the earliest point of time. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners objected to separate enquiries being held against each one of them. 14. But in my view, the said contention cannot hold good at least for two reasons. They are (i) that the petitioners did not seek a joint enquiry at the earliest point of time. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners objected to separate enquiries being held against each one of them. Therefore, after having participated in the enquiry and after having exhausted a remedy of appeal and a remedy of revision, it is not open to the petitioners to assail the order of penalty on the ground that a joint enquiry was not held. It must be pointed out that the main part of Rule 4A indicates two requirements. One requirement relates to the competence of the Authority, who can initiate disciplinary proceedings. The other requirement relates to the procedure to be followed, namely the conduct of a joint enquiry. While the first requirement, which relates to the competence of the Authority, cannot at all be waived or given a go-by, the second requirement, which is only a rule of procedure can always be waived. The petitioners, by their failure to oppose the conduct of separate enquiries at the earliest point of time, have waived their right to seek a joint enquiry; and (ii) In any case, the last portion of the main part of Rule 4A merely states that "the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together". The Rule does not use the expression "joint enquiry". Taking up two or three cases or two or three enquiries together need not necessarily mean that they were taken up for joint trial or joint enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be stated that Rule 4A mandates a joint enquiry. It merely mandates all enquiries to be taken up together. Hence, the second contention is also rejected. 15. The third contention is that the charge ought to have been framed only under Rule 3 (a) for a minor penalty proceeding and not under Rule 3(b) for a major penalty proceeding. Since the charge framed against the petitioners is one of neglect of duty, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the charge memo ought to have been issued only under Rule 3(a). 16. Since the charge framed against the petitioners is one of neglect of duty, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the charge memo ought to have been issued only under Rule 3(a). 16. But, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that weight of the charge of neglect of duty has to be assessed only from the consequence that flowed out of such neglect of duty. The neglect of duty on the part of a Government servant, may result in different consequences. At times, it may result in something which is inconsequential. At times, it may result in a consequence which is irreparable or irredeemable. Therefore, every charge of neglect of duty cannot be classified under the same category. 17. In the case on hand, the neglect of duty alleged against the petitioners has to be judged from the consequence that had flown out of the neglect of duty. The neglect of duty has resulted in the death of a person. The person, who died, had just been apprehended and I do not think that there was even a first information report against him. Therefore, in the light of the death of a person, who was taken into custody by the police, the charge of neglect of duty becomes grave. Consequently, the initiation of the proceedings under Rule 3(b) for a major penalty cannot be found fault with. 18. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon various Government Instructions, in which, guidelines had been issued as to how to categorise the allegations of misconduct into minor and grave charges. But, these instructions are only guidelines. The liberty that the Disciplinary Authority has, to categorise an allegation into a minor or grave charge, depending upon the consequence that it had led to, cannot be taken away by these instructions. Hence, the third contention is also rejected. 19. The fourth contention is that the finding of guilt was not on the basis of any evidence worth acceptance. Drawing my attention to the evidence tendered by the driver of the container lorry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that it was a case of no evidence. Hence, the third contention is also rejected. 19. The fourth contention is that the finding of guilt was not on the basis of any evidence worth acceptance. Drawing my attention to the evidence tendered by the driver of the container lorry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that it was a case of no evidence. The driver of the container lorry, by which, the deceased was knocked down fatally, stated in his evidence that he was proceeding in his lorry from Harbour to Andarkuppam Container Godown on 28.8.1998 early morning by about 02.15 hours and that he saw a police jeep parked on the left side of the Ennore Express Road. He further stated that while the container lorry was passing by the jeep parked on the left side, a person suddenly crossed the vehicle and fell under the back wheel of the container, suffered head injury and succumbed. To a question whether the deceased was chased by the police, the driver of the container lorry stated that he was not chased by the police. 20. But, on the basis of the above evidence, it cannot be stated that even a charge of negligence was not proved. If the driver of the container lorry had stated that the deceased was chased by the police and that in the process, he came running and got knocked down by the lorry, then, a more serious charge than that of negligence would have been proved against the petitioners. It is only because of the evidence of the driver of the container lorry that the deceased was not chased by the police, that the petitioners and others escaped with a charge of neglect of duty. To prove the charge of neglect of duty, the evidence of PW1 (driver of the lorry) was more than sufficient, especially in a departmental enquiry. 21. Moreover, as per the statement of the driver of the lorry, the victim went under the rear side wheel of the container. Therefore, the driver could not have seen the victim, who was actually coming from the left hand side of the road. It must be remembered that all lorries have only a right hand drive. 21. Moreover, as per the statement of the driver of the lorry, the victim went under the rear side wheel of the container. Therefore, the driver could not have seen the victim, who was actually coming from the left hand side of the road. It must be remembered that all lorries have only a right hand drive. Therefore, the driver of a lorry sitting on the right hand side could not have noticed a person running across the road from the left hand side and going under the rear wheel of a vehicle, especially a container. Hence, the contention that the evidence of PW1 was no evidence to record a finding of guilt against the petitioners cannot be accepted. 22. The last contention is that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. But, I do not think that the punishment is highly disproportionate. As pointed out earlier, the penalty imposed is one of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years. Considering the fact that the misconduct alleged against the petitioners had resulted in a loss of valuable human life, I cannot consider the punishment to be disproportionate. There is also one more reason for me not to entertain such a contention. As stated above, the original order of penalty was passed by the Commissioner of Police on 31.5.2001. It was confirmed on appeal by the Director General of Police by an order 22.7.2002. As against the said order, the petitioners filed mercy petitions to the Chief Minister and the same were also rejected. The petitioners also gave petitions to the Government on 29.4.2003 and came up with writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2788 and 2789 of 2006. Those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Government to pass orders on the petitions dated 29.4.2003. It is in pursuance of the directions so issued that the impugned orders came to be passed. 23. In other words, the remedy of appeal provided by the Statutory Rules first got exhausted with the order of the Director General of Police. Challenging the said order, the petitioners ought to have come up with writ petitions. But, they filed mercy petitions to the Chief Minister, before the rejection of which, they filed petitions to the Government. There was no question of any petition being entertained at that stage. Challenging the said order, the petitioners ought to have come up with writ petitions. But, they filed mercy petitions to the Chief Minister, before the rejection of which, they filed petitions to the Government. There was no question of any petition being entertained at that stage. However, this Court passed orders in the previous writ petitions directing the disposal of those petitions. In this process, a period of nine years have passed, before the impugned orders could be passed by the Government. Hence, at this stage, the question of disproportionality of punishment does not arise, especially in a case of this nature. Therefore, the last contention of the petitioners is also rejected. 24. Accordingly, the above writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the above miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.