Judgment 1. The petitioner joined the service as Grade II Police Constable in 27.12.1985. He was a Grade I Police Constable at the relevant point of time, when he was issued with a charge memo dated 20.10.19997 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955. 2. It is relevant to extract the following passage in the charge memo dated 20.10.1997 : “TAMIL” 3. The disciplinary action resulted in passing of the punishment order dated 29.07.1998 by the first respondent imposing the punishment of reduction in time-scale by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the second respondent by the order dated 15.10.1998. The review petition made to the third respondent was dismissed on 29.01.1999. Again, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent with a Mercy Petition on 09.01.2002. The fourth respondent also rejected the same in his order dated 18.02.2002. Ultimately, the fifth respondent also passed the order in G.O.(2D)No.349, Home (Pol.VI) Department, dated 10.10.2002 confirming the order of punishment. 4. The petitioner filed the original application questioning the aforesaid orders before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the application stood transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16661 of 2007. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is seen that in the departmental enquiry, the said Rani was not examined as a witness and she was not even shown as a witness. On the other hand, the criminal case on the same set of allegations ended in acquittal in C.C.No.379 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. 8. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that before the criminal court, the said Rani turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Furthermore, the said Rani entered into a compromise, as per the counter affidavit. In this regard, the following in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit is extracted hereunder : “3 .... The criminal case against him ended in acquittal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, since the complainant Rani turned hostile and both of them effected compromise. ....” 9. In view of the same, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. This writ petition is allowed. No costs.