Judgment : 1. The petitioner was a Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Control Room, Trichy City, at the relevant time. He was imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy, the second respondent herein, by an order dated 29.03.2003, based on the disciplinary proceedings relating to charge memo issued in P.R.No.18/2001 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 2. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal petition dated 26.04.2003 to the Director General of Police. In para 7 of the appeal petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that two other persons, who were also issued charge memos under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the same allegations were let off with a warning and therefore, he alone cannot be discriminated in the matter of punishment. 3. In this regard, para 7 of the appeal petition dated 26.04.2003 preferred by the petitioner is extracted hereunder: “7. I beg to state that the Inspector of Police, Cantonment and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cantonment to whom further investigation into the case was entrusted and who made a mess of the whole affair were let off with a mere warning, whereas I was drastically dealt with under rule 3(b) and awarded a severe statutory punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for one year. I submit that at the time of the case was reported and I was ordered to take up investigation, I was only a head-constable just promoted as Special Sub-Inspector. The alleged lapse on my part was due to inadvertence and certainly not wanton deliberate or by design, for which I have been awarded such a severe statutory punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for one year. I pray that my appeal may please be considered sympathetically.” 4. But the aforesaid averment was not at all considered by the first respondent appellate authority in his order dated 18.10.2003 while confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. If two other persons, who were also charge sheeted similarly, were let off with warning, I am of the view that the petitioner should also be treated with the same treatment. But the aforesaid averment was not at all considered by the first respondent appellate authority in his order dated 18.10.2003 while confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. If two other persons, who were also charge sheeted similarly, were let off with warning, I am of the view that the petitioner should also be treated with the same treatment. It is also stated that those two persons were Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation, after the petitioner did the same. 5. According to the petitioner, he was a Head Constable when he was ordered to take up the investigation and subsequently, he was made as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence, if the subsequent Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police were let off with warning, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned orders of the respondents are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal petition preferred by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs.