JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the impugned charge-memo in P.R/Traffic/P.R.(52)/215, approved on 11.06.2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, (3rd respondent) under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in which the petitioner was slapped with the following charges_ (Cat.II) “LANGUAGE” 2. The petitioner was enlisted as Grade-II Police Constable on 27.02.1986 and after finding his satisfactory service, he was given promotion to the post of Head Constable and subsequently, promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.03.2005. While serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, he was issued with the aforementioned charge-memo, signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai (3rd respondent herein), alleging that in the promotion board conducted for drawing 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Cat.II) for the year 2004, he has tampered the grading in the Annual Confidential Records (ACR) towards overall performance as 'outstanding' in the Annual Confidential Report submitted for the preceding five years i.e, 1999-2004. It has been further alleged that for the promotion Board conducted for the year 2003, he has secured 20.10 mark for Annual Confidential Report. It is stated that even if the full mark of 6 is awarded for the last year, his total mark would not have been more than 26.10 for the Promotion Board conducted for the year 2004; whereas his marks were entered as 27.60. On this basis, it was alleged that to gain more marks in the Promotion Board, bogus ACR with the grading for overall performance as 'Outstanding' was prepared by him and submitted for the Board. In the light of the above said first charge, it has been further alleged that he has violated Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Officer's Conduct Rules, 1964. 3. Assailing the impugned charge-memo, it has been contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that when the personal files of the Police Personnel are all confidential in nature and they are maintained and kept in the personal safe custody of the officers according to the ranks, in the case of the petitioner, his ACR files were with the custody of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai. When the ACRs are being prepared for every year and filed in the personal files, the petitioner cannot have any personal access to handle his personal file. Moreover, the ACRs are being prepared every year on 31st March of the year, by the Reporting Officer. For Head Constables in the armed Reserve, the Reporting Officer is Inspector of Police of the respective company and he makes his remarks in all the columns of the ACR. In the same report, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Reviewing Officer) adds his remarks and forward the report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, who being the accepting officer. The Accepting Officer adds his remarks in the same report and send the reports to the next superior officer for perusal. In this process, there is no chance for the petitioner to have the access of the Annual Confidential Report. Therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner in the impugned charge-memo that he has tampered the personal files is beyond the scope of any imagination. 4. Again, drawing the notice of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that after issuing the charge-memo, now the respondents have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not committed any tampering of the ACR. Reiterating the stand of the respondents, that there was no tampering of the records by the petitioner, referring to Paragraphs 7 & 10 in the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the respondents have filed their counter fairly stating that there was no tampering of records by the petitioner, the petitioner, who had reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017, should be allowed to retire from service, with all retirement benefits, by quashing the impugned charge-memo. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the counter affidavit prepared by the 3rd respondent shows that there is no tampering of records found so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, for the ACR of the years 2001 to 2004. Since the first charge itself is related to the allegation of tampering ACR in respect of the year 2004, the charge cannot be proceeded with. The learned Special Government Pleader is also not able to support the charges framed against the petitioner. 6. Since the first charge itself is related to the allegation of tampering ACR in respect of the year 2004, the charge cannot be proceeded with. The learned Special Government Pleader is also not able to support the charges framed against the petitioner. 6. This Court is stunned to see how such a charge-memo has been issued against the petitioner by the respondents, when they themselves admit in the counter affidavit that there is no tampering, not only for the year 2004, but also from the year 2001 to 2004. In view of the admission made by the respondents in the counter, the writ petition deserved to be allowed. 7. Further, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that due to the pendency of the charge-memo, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service even after he reached superannuation on 31.05.2017, as a result, he was not in a position to aid his ailing wife and she breathed her lost on 24.11.2017, because the respondents refused to pay the retrial benefits and pension. After issuing the charge memo under Rule 3 (b) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1995 in PR/Traffic/PR (52)/215 on 11.06.2015, as the petitioner reached the superannuation on 31.05.2017, he was not permitted to retire from service. He was not paid with pension and retrial benefits causing huge problem to maintain his family. His ailing wife also died on 24.11.2017 for want of money to be paid for her treatment. In view of the wrong and false charge memo, he was denied even his pension and that has ruined his family with irreparable loss. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a clear case where a huge cost has to be imposed. However, in view of the repeated requests made by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court restricts the cost at Rs.10,000/-. In fine, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and impugned order charge-memo is quashed, with a costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the third respondent to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner shall be permitted to retire from service on his superannuation and shall be paid with all consequential benefits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.