Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. This Court passed an order dated 23.11.2011 in W.P.No.49573 of 2006 (O.A.No.5331/2001) quashing the impugned order imposing minor punishment under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the sole ground that though the punishment order was passed based of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, such findings was not furnished to the petitioner, before imposing the penalty. 3. It is not the case of the review petitioner that the punishment order was not based on the findings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi. Since the punishment was imposed by the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, based on the findings recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi, the punishment order is bad and illegal, as correctly held by me in the writ petition. 4. It is true that no such findings are necessary by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, based on the evidence, as stated by the Superintendent of Police and they could simply pass an order in the case of a departmental proceeding under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. But if the Department has chosen to rely on certain findings, adverse to the petitioner, the same shall be furnished to him, even if the departmental proceeding is initiated under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 5. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that since the departmental proceeding is initiated under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer need not to be furnished to the petitioner in the writ petition, is rejected. On this sole ground, the review application is liable to be dismissed. However, I am of the view that the delay itself for approaching this Court, after three years is not explained. There is no reason much less valid reason is adduced to explain the delay. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, this miscellaneous petition seeking to condone the delay is rejected and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.