Order 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was enlisted as Grade II Police Constable, on 13.06.1974, and thereafter, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police and on 28.02.2011, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was serving as Sub – Inspector of Police at Palayamkottai Crime Police Station, Tirunelveli City, he was issued with a charge memo on the ground that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe from one Mr. S. Saravanan and also demanded a Cell Phone, worth about Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the complainant, for giving as Deepavali Gift to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and thereby misused the name of the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on 11.06.2007. Having not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, an Enquiy Officer was appointed, who conducted enquiry and submitted report, on 10.07.2007, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the fourth respondent, by his proceedings, dated 24.08.2007, awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. 2. Challenging the said order, dated 24.08.2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal, on 03.09.2007, before the third respondent. By proceedings, dated 05.11.2007, the third respondent modified the punishment of compulsory retirement from service into that of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments and further directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with immediate effect. Seeking to review the said order, dated 05.11.2007, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the second respondent, who, in turn, by proceedings, dated 12.05.2008, held that the modified punishment is not excessive in view of the seriousness of the delinquency, and accordingly, rejected the Review Petition. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Mercy Petition, on 13.10.2008, before the first respondent. Vide proceedings, dated 18.01.2011, the first respondent rejected the Mercy Petition filed by the petitioner and confirmed the orders passed by the authorities concerned. Assailing the validity of all the above orders, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that a false case was foisted on the petitioner due to personal enmity. Assailing the validity of all the above orders, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that a false case was foisted on the petitioner due to personal enmity. The learned counsel further contended that all the respondents had mechanically accepted the findings of the enquiry officer, which are not based on any documentary evidence. The learned counsel also contended that the third respondent, without even any discussion on the grounds of appeal, confirmed the order of the fourth respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 had also, without any discussion on the Review Petition as well as the Mercy Petition, and without assigning any valid reasons, had rejected the same, and therefore, sought the setting aside of the impugned proceedings with appropriate direction. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, contended that the Enquiry Officer, in his findings, on the basis of the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 and through documentary evidences, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and based on the same, the fourth respondent awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which was, taking into consideration of the service rendered by the petitioner, modified by the third respondent into that of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments and further directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with immediate effect, and thus, there is nothing perverse in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. Bribe, a vital disease threatening our society, has pushed the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. A police personnel involving in such offences, would degrade the whole Police Department and the people may lose their hope towards the police. 7. Here, in the case on hand, the charges levelled against the petitioner were that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/-as bribe from one Mr. A police personnel involving in such offences, would degrade the whole Police Department and the people may lose their hope towards the police. 7. Here, in the case on hand, the charges levelled against the petitioner were that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/-as bribe from one Mr. S. Saravanan and also demanded a Cell Phone, worth about Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the complainant, for giving as Deepavali Gift to the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and thereby misused the name of the Commissioner of Police. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his explanation and being dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was conducted. On enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the fourth respondent, by his proceedings, dated 24.08.2007, awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the third respondent, who his proceedings, dated 05.11.2007, modified the punishment of compulsory retirement from service into that of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone his future increments, besides immediate reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The Review Petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected in view of the seriousness of the delinquency. Again, the Mercy Petition, filed on 13.10.2008, before the first respondent, was also rejected confirming the orders passed by the authorities concerned. 8. Taking into account the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner had committed the above delinquencies and he was submitted to enquiry, wherein the punishment of 'compulsory retirement from service' was imposed on him and on appeal, it was modified into one of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order reducing the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years, would meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is not entitled to any more relief, than what he had already been given in the appeal filed by him. 9. For the reasons stated supra, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.