JUDGMENT : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order made in W.P(MD)No.2017 of 2018 dated 04.06.2018. 2. The appellants are the respondents before the Writ Court. The writ petitioner/respondent herein filed the above writ petition and challenged the order of punishment of postponement of his next increment for three years with cumulative effect. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the punishment, by taking up the main writ petition itself at the admission stage. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants contended that the writ Court failed to consider that in the departmental enquiry held on 19.09.2013, the investigation officer appeared as prosecution witness and gave evidence about the offence. He further submitted that when the victim girl herself has deposed before the departmental enquiry as P.W.2 and categorically spoken about the offence committed by the delinquent, the Writ Court ought not to have allowed the writ petition without looking into the above aspects especially when the victim girl was not at all cross examined by the delinquent. He further contened that the Writ Court erroneously taken a view as if the enquiry officer has taken note of the statements made during preliminary enquiry alone for concluding against the delinquent, when the fact remains that during domestic enquiry, seven witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer, out of whom P.W.2 is the victim girl. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Writ court by contending that though the Criminal Court has acquitted the delinquent, the Writ court has not chosen to allow the writ petition solely by relying upon the decision of the Criminal Court and therefore, the order of the Writ Court need not be interfered with. He further contended that the enquiry officer has taken note of the statements made in the preliminary enquiry alone to find against the delinquent, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants. We heard the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner and perused the written submission made by him as well. We have also carefully perused the materials placed before us and the order of the Writ Court. 6. The writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-I Constable and completed about 13 years of service. We heard the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner and perused the written submission made by him as well. We have also carefully perused the materials placed before us and the order of the Writ Court. 6. The writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-I Constable and completed about 13 years of service. A criminal case was filed against him in Crime No.7 of 2012 on the file of Aundipatti All Women Police Station, Theni District, for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 366(A), 342 and 376 IPC. Consequently, he was suspended from service on 04.12.2012. Simultaneously, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955, by issuing the following charge:- “TAMIL” 7. An enquiry officer was appointed, who, in turn conducted the 5 enquiry and examined 7 witnesses on the side of the prosecution including the victim girl as P.W.2. The delinquent has not chosen to examine any witness on his side. After thoroughly considering the facts and circumstances and the depositions of the witnesses, the enquiry officer found the charge as proved and thus filed a detailed report. 8. Perusal of the enquiry report, dated 15.10.2013, would clearly indicate that the victim girl, who was examined in the enquiry as P.W. 2, has, without any ambiguity, stated before the enquiry officer that it is correct that she has given police complaint stating the writ petitioner had abducted her and also committed sexual assault on her. 9. It is to be noted at this juncture that the delinquent/writ petitioner has not chosen to cross examine the victim girl/P.W.2. Therefore, it is evident that the charge levelled against the writ petitioner is undoubtedly a very grave and serious charge and that the said charge has been found proved in the domestic enquiry after following due procedure. It is specifically pointed out by the enquiry officer that the delinquent, during the enquiry, has chosen to cross examine P.W.1 alone and not other witnesses, including the victim girl/P.W.2. Therefore, it is evident that though he was given due opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, he failed to do so except on P.W.1. In other words, he has not chosen to cross examine the victim girl for the reasons best known to him. 10. Therefore, it is evident that though he was given due opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, he failed to do so except on P.W.1. In other words, he has not chosen to cross examine the victim girl for the reasons best known to him. 10. We have already pointed out that the respondent in the disciplined force is issued with a charge memo containing a very serious and grave allegation of abducting a minor girl and committing of sexual assault on her, by keeping her in his illegal custody for three days. We have also pointed out that the said charge was found proved by the enquiry officer by conducting a proper enquiry. However, the disciplinary authority has, graciously, chosen to award only a minor punishment of postponement of next increment for three years. It is terribly shocking our judicial conscience to see the mechanical approach of the said disciplinary authority to simply impose such a minor punishment for the said proven grave and serious charge. It is not stated anywhere in the order of punishment, as to why the disciplinary authority has chosen to impose only a minor punishment on the delinquent despite the fact that he has fully agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. We do not find the punishment imposed is in proportion to the offence committed by the delinquent and on the other hand, it is totally disproportionate and inadequate. Unfortunately, the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the review authority. Thus, we express our strong displeasure and disapproval on the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent. 11. Even though the punishment is very minimal and not proportionate, the delinquent still wanted such punishment set aside and thus, approached this Court and filed the writ petition as stated supra. 12. Admittedly, the writ petition was filed challenging the orders of disciplinary, appellate and review authorities. All the authorities found against the delinquent. However, the Writ Court has taken the writ petition for final disposal at the stage of admission itself in the absence of any counter pleadings of the respondents. No doubt, it is stated that the writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself by consent of both parties. All the authorities found against the delinquent. However, the Writ Court has taken the writ petition for final disposal at the stage of admission itself in the absence of any counter pleadings of the respondents. No doubt, it is stated that the writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself by consent of both parties. It is not known as to why the Additional Government Pleader, who appeared before the Writ Court on the said day, has not chosen to pray for time to file counter and instead has consented for taking the main writ petition itself at the admission stage. At the same time, we would like to point out that the Writ Court can certainly take up a matter and decide it at the admission stage itself, provided such disposal is supported by any binding decision accepted by both parties or such decision at the admission stage would not affect the interest of either parties either by remitting the matter to the authority concerned or by disposing the same without expressing any view on the merits of the contention raised by both parties. However, in this case, an order of punishment confirmed by appellate and review authority is put to challenge and therefore, the pleadings of respondents are certainly necessary to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Unfortunately, the Writ Court was carried over by the findings rendered in the criminal case, acquitting the writ petitioner, for allowing the writ petition. The Writ Court has observed that the enquiry officer found that the charge stood prove only by taking note of the statements given by the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry. We have already pointed out that in the domestic enquiry, seven witnesses were examined including the victim girl as P.W.2 and that the enquiry officer, after considering the statement of those witnesses, has found the charge proved. Therefore, this finding of the Writ Court is factually incorrect. Further, the Writ Court observed that the enquiry officer ought to have seen whether any legally acceptable material was adduced before him and that none of the witnesses supported the charge framed against the delinquent during the enquiry. Therefore, this finding of the Writ Court is factually incorrect. Further, the Writ Court observed that the enquiry officer ought to have seen whether any legally acceptable material was adduced before him and that none of the witnesses supported the charge framed against the delinquent during the enquiry. This again is an incorrect finding in view of the fact that the very victim girl, who was examined as P.W.2 in the enquiry, has in clear and categorical terms, spoken in support of the charge. When the victim girl, having not been cross examined, her evidence is undoubtedly a very valid and material evidence, which alone is sufficient for concluding against the delinquent in the absence of any other contra evidence to show and establish mala fide or ill will on the part of the victim girl to speak against the delinquent. When such being the factual position, we are not able to comprehend ourselves with the findings of the Writ Court, as if no legally acceptable material was placed before the enquiry officer. It is well settled that the finding rendered by the criminal Court or acquittal made therein will not stand in the way of the departmental proceedings independently to proceed with the enquiry and give a finding on the charge framed, since the standard of proof required before the Criminal Court is different from that of the standard of proof required in a departmental enquiry. While the former requires high standard of proof for conviction, the latter needs only a proof of preponderance of probabilities, based on the evidence placed during the enquiry. If preponderance of probabilities is established in the enquiry, it is sufficient to find the delinquent guilty and consequently, to impose the adequate and appropriate punishment on him. 13. At this junture, a recent decision of the Apex Court made in Civil Appeal No(s).6183 of 2010 dated 11.07.2019 in the case of Union of India and others vs. Sitaram Mishra and another, is relevant to be quoted, wherein at paragraphs 9 and 12, it has been observed as follows:- “9.............. The High Court was manifestly in erro in reappreciating the evidence which was adduced during the disciplinary enquiry. The issue, in the exercise of judicial review against a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry, is whether the finding is sustainable with reference to some evidence on the record. The High Court was manifestly in erro in reappreciating the evidence which was adduced during the disciplinary enquiry. The issue, in the exercise of judicial review against a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary enquiry, is whether the finding is sustainable with reference to some evidence on the record. This High Court can, it is well-settled, interfere only in a situation where the finding is based on no evidence. In such a situation, the finding is rendered perverse. In the present case, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench adverts to the statement of the first respondent of the circumstances in which the death of his colleague occurred.........” 12. The second ground, which has weighed with the High Court, is equally specious. A disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a criminal case. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is to enable the employer to determine as to whether an employee has committed a breach of the service rules..........” Therefore, we find that the Writ Court is not justified in not taking note of all these facts and circumstances. Therefore, we find that the order of the Writ Court cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. At the same time, we do not want to leave this matter simply by allowing the writ appeal thereby restoring the minor punishment imposed on the respondent, since our judicial conscience does not permit to leave this respondent with such minor punishment alone having regard to the nature of offence found to have been committed by him. 15. We have already pointed out that the disciplinary authority has imposed minor punishment on the delinquent, even though he has fully agreed with the findings rendered by the enquiry officer. Needless to say that when the charge levelled against the delinquent is grave in nature and when the same is found proved in the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority ought to have imposed adequate and proportionate punishment on the delinquent instead of imposing a very minor punishment, in a casual manner, without even giving any reason as to why such minor punishment was imposed in respect of such grave misconduct. Unfortunately, neither the appellate authority nor the review authority has considered this aspect, while confirming the order of punishment. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 contemplates that the appellate authority is empowered to confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the penality, while disposing the appeal. No doubt, such enhancement of penalty is to be imposed only after following the due procedure contemplated under Rule 6(1)(a) to (c). Likewise, the Rule 15(A) of the said Rule deals with the power of review by the competent authority either on his own motion or otherwise and to confirm, modify or set aside the order or confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty already imposed. Proviso to Rule 15(A) further contemplates that an application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner, as if it were an appeal under the said Rules. Therefore, it is evident that both the appellate authority as well as the review authority are empowered also to enhance the penalty, while disposing the appeal or review filed by the delinquent, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. In this case, as we have found that the punishment imposed on the delinquent is totally inadequate and disproportionate to the grave misconduct committed by him, we are of the view that it is for the first appellant, review authority to reconsider the matter afresh only in respect of the quantum of punishment and to pass appropriate orders after following the due procedure contemplated under the relevant Rules. Therefore, the following order is passed in this writ appeal:- “(a) the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the Writ Court is set aside. (b) consequently, the matter is remitted back to the first appellant for reconsidering the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent/respondent and pass appropriate orders for imposing the adequate and proportionate punishment on the delinquent after following the due procedure. (c) since we remit the matter to the first appellant, the order passed by the first appellant, dated 21.12.2016, shall be treated as withdrawn for the purpose of passing a fresh order as observed supra.” No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.