Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined the service as Police Constable at Tanjore District Armed Reserve on 21.10.1965. The petitioner was transferred to Nagapattinam District in the year 1972, as Police Constable in department of Law & Order. The petitoiner was then promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in 1976, and Head Constable in the year 1993. The petitioner earned 25 rewards, during his service career. 2. The petitioner, while serving as Grade-I Police Constable in Sirkali Police Station, was served with charge memo, on the allegation of misconduct of demanding illegal gratification from one Nagarajan for stitching uniforms for the Inspector of Police. 3. The second allegations was that the petitioner had filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, alleging that the Inspector of Police, Jayaram, helped Advocate Rajaram to vacate the land near the Police line, which was in possession of a Police personnel. 4. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charges levelled against him. Enquiry officer conducted enquiry, wherein witnesses were allowed to cross examine. The petitioner also examined two witnesses in defense. 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charges, levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer, therefore, imposed punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. 6. The petitioner did not file any appeal or review against the order of punishment, and approached the learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal to challenge the order of punishment. 7. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground, that the punishment order is vitiated, as it was not open to the authority to take into consideration the statement recorded at the back of the petitioner. 8. The case of the petitioner is that statement of P.W.5 was recorded at the back of the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that there is no evidence for charge no.1, therefore, it is case of no evidence. Furthermore, The finding recorded on charge no.2, also suffers from lack of evidence, and is based on conjecture and surmises. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to statement of the defense witness. 10. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of enquiry report shows that witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to statement of the defense witness. 10. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of enquiry report shows that witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer. P.W.1 was also declared hostile. The petitioner also examined defense witness in enquiry, therefore, it cannot be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice or any procedural defect in conducting the enquiry. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence, cannot be accepted, as the enquriy report shows that five witnesses were examined in support of the charge. 12. It is well settled law that this Court cannot substitute its opinion for the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, unless the finding recorded is shown to be perverse or not based on evidence. This Court cannot interfere merely on the ground that other view is also possible. 13. The competent authority passed the impugned order taking into consideration the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner. 14. For the reason best known to the petitioner, he has not chosen to file statutory remedy of appeal etc. The appellate authority could reappraise the evidence, which is not permissible in writ jurisdiction, as this Court cannot re-appraise the evidence, to see if the finding recorded is correct. 15. The punishment awarded is also on lesser side, as inspite of serious and grave charges, proved against the petitioner, and he has been dealt with leniently by the respondents. 16. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.