Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 7.2.2007 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, containing 3 charges. The charges are as follows: "i) He absented himself from attending duty on 19.12.2006 at 1 p.m. ii) He violated Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Conduct Rules by having illicit intimacy with one Rathidevi. iii) He got arrested in a murder case in Crime No.2076 of 2006 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and remanded to judicial custody. 3. Departmental enquiry was conducted against him, wherein 10 witnesses were examined. The enquiry officer gave his report dated 28.6.2008 holding that the charge Nos.1 and 3 were established and that charge No.2 was not established. But, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the ground that the charges were established. The disciplinary authority came to a different conclusion in respect of charge No.2 also without hearing the petitioner on the said findings. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 23.9.2009 against the punishment order before the second respondent. The second respondent rejected the appeal by an order dated 13.11.2009. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the aforesaid orders dated 15.9.2009 of the first respondent and 13.11.2009 of the second respondent. 5. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit on behalf of himself and on behalf of the second respondent, refuting the allegations. 6. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made various submissions, as the issue raised in the Writ Petition lies in narrow compass, I am not going into the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the Writ Petition is allowed on the ground that the dismissal order was passed by the first respondent/disciplinary authority without hearing the petitioner when the disciplinary authority came to a different conclusion from that of the enquiry officer. 7. The first respondent passed the impugned order of dismissal on the ground that all the charges were proved, while the enquiry officer held that charge No.2 was not proved. Before coming to the conclusion that the second charge was proved, the disciplinary authority did not hear the petitioner on his differed findings. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Before coming to the conclusion that the second charge was proved, the disciplinary authority did not hear the petitioner on his differed findings. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 makes it clear that the delinquent shall be heard on the differed findings. The following passage in the said judgment is extracted below: "The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority record its findings on the charges framed against the officer." 9. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to hear the petitioner on his differed findings that the charge No.2 was proved and thereafter pass the final order in the matter. 10. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders as stated above. Since the petitioner was already kept under suspension at the time of passing dismissal order, the petitioner is deemed to be kept under suspension till the first respondent passes an order as stated above. The first respondent is directed to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date on which fresh final order is passed by the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date on which fresh final order is passed by the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to pass final orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.