Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition calling for records relating to the impugned orders of the 4th respondent in Ref.C.No.B2/PR.11/2004, dated 3.3.2005, as confirmed in the impugned order of the 3rd respondent in Ref.Rc.No.API(3)/AP IV (1) 125176/2005, dated 7.3.2006 and finally confirmed by the impugned G.O.(2D) No.106, Home (Pol. VI) Department, dated 29.2.2008, and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to pay regular salary of the petitioner with all increment and service benefits payable to him ignoring the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was working as Grade-II Police Constable in the year 1978 and was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1999. While the petitioner was working in the Prohibition Enforcement Wing attached to Athanakottai in the year 2000, a case in Crime No.6 of 2000 on the file of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Pudukottai, was registered on 18.10.2000 at the instance of one Karuppiah, who was preparing illicit arrack. 3. A trap was laid based on the complaint to arrest the persons, who demanded bribe. The trap arranged failed on 18.10.2000 and failure report was filed in Crime No.6 of 2000 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. The said report was recorded on 05.4.2002 by the Court. 4. A charge memo was issued against the petitioner, as if he was also involved in the demand of bribe for illegal gratification. The complainant Karuppiah and other co-accused did not implicate the petitioner in the said incident. This charge memo was issued based on the statement of one Raman and Marikannu, who are said to be co-accused and cited as witnesses 4 and 5 in the charge memo. The said statements were obtained from the said persons after six months from the alleged incident. 5. When the enquiry was conducted, the complainant Karuppiah was dead. The witnesses Raman and Marikannu did not speak about any bribe being given to the petitioner. All the witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer based on the statement of witnesses on earlier occasion found the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted explanation to enquiry report to the fourth respondent, who without appreciating the points raised by the petitioner imposed punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years. 6. The Enquiry Officer based on the statement of witnesses on earlier occasion found the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted explanation to enquiry report to the fourth respondent, who without appreciating the points raised by the petitioner imposed punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years. 6. The petitioner filed appeal before the third respondent on 01.5.2005. The third respondent issued a show cause notice as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The third respondent dropped the proceedings for enhancement of punishment, but confirmed the earlier punishment. The petitioner gave a petition to the first respondent, who rejected the same on the ground that the allegation relates to demand and acceptance of bribe. 7. According to the petitioner, the named accused Arul in Cr.No.6 of 2000 challenged similar punishment before this Court. This Court, by order dated 26.7.2011, set aside the similar punishment imposed on him. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition to quash the order of punishment. 8. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, (a) the complainant did not implicate the petitioner in the incident of demanding bribe; (b) the trap laid against the named accused failed; (c) statements were recorded from alleged witnesses implicating petitioner after 6 months of incident; (d) in the Enquiry, no witness spoke against the petitioner. (e) the Enquiry Officer erred in relying on earlier statement of witnesses and gave a report that charges levelled against petitioner were proved. (f) the respondent failed to consider the points raised by the petitioner in proper perspective and in a mechanical manner imposed punishment. 10. This Court, by order dated 26.7.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.7412 of 2006, set aside the similar punishment relating to similarly placed person S.Arul, Head Constable 844, who was named accused in Cr.No.6 of 2000. 11. For the above reasons, he prayed for setting aside impugned order. 12. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contended that charges levelled against the petitioner and others are serious in nature, namely, demand and accepting of bribe. The witnesses turned hostile at the time of enquiry. Hence, the Enquriy Officer has rightly taken note of earlier statement of witnesses and has given a report. 12. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contended that charges levelled against the petitioner and others are serious in nature, namely, demand and accepting of bribe. The witnesses turned hostile at the time of enquiry. Hence, the Enquriy Officer has rightly taken note of earlier statement of witnesses and has given a report. The fourth respondent has considered all the materials and has imposed punishment giving cogent and valid reasons. Similarly, respondents 3 and 1 have considered the materials and rejected the appeal and petition filed by the petitioner. He submitted that hence, the punishment imposed is a proper one in the circumstances of the case. 13. I have considered the arguments put forth by either side and also perused the materials available on record. 14. The respondents have not denied the averment that the petitioner was not implicated by the complainant, Karuppiah. In the enquiry, no witnesses were examined that the petitioner demanded and received bribe. Further, the witness, who gave statement against the petitioner retracted the same. In any event, the said statements were recorded six months after the incident. This averment of the petitioner was not denied by respondents. 15. Further, this Court, by order dated 26.07.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.7412 of 2006 set aside the punishment imposed on similarly placed persons, who were alleged to be involved in the same incident. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of W.P.(MD)No.7412 of 2006 are as follows: "22. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not the case, where the evidence was rejected by the Criminal Court, has been accepted in the Departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, no evidence was led as the police on investigation, had decided to drop the proceedings. Even otherwise this contention, cannot be accepted as it is well settled that despite acquittal in criminal case, person can be held guilty and punished in departmental proceedings vide SOUTHERN RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER ..VS.. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2009 (9) S.C.C.24). As already observed above, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contended that mere FIR is not a piece of evidence to hold the petitioner guilty. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer have to be held to be perverse being based on no evidence thus, not sustainable in law. 23. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2009 (9) S.C.C.24). As already observed above, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contended that mere FIR is not a piece of evidence to hold the petitioner guilty. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer have to be held to be perverse being based on no evidence thus, not sustainable in law. 23. The impugned order passed by the punishing authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority cannot be sustained, as they are based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, which is held to be bad in law." 16. The said reasoning is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the impugned order of respondents 4, 3 and 1 are set aside. The petitioner is entitled to all monetary and service benefits. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.