JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D).No.319 Home (SC) Department dated 03.11.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date on which his junior got promotion with continuity of service and all other attended monetary benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D).No.319 Home (SC) Department dated 03.11.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date on which his junior got promotion, with continuity of service and all other attended monetary benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ramanathapuram District. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police by direct recruitment on 28.09.1987 and subsequently he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 31.12.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 13.07.2009 and posted at Puliyankudi, Tirunelveli District. He was awarded with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Award for meritorious service in cracking the 227 idol theft in Tamilnadu. When the petitioner was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police at DCRB, Tirunelveli District, a charge memo came to be issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules in P.R.No.19 of 2011, alleging that while he was deputing to assist one Mr.R.M.Madhavan who was the co-delinquent, in the investigation of the case in Cr.No.61 of 1997, detaining S.Ramachandran, for the period from 25.01.1998 to 05.02.1998, torturing him to disclose the facts of the case in Cr.No.61 of 1997 and thereby violating human rights. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 28.05.2011. However, not satisfying with the explanation given by the petitioner, Enquiry officer has been appointed and he has also submitted his enquiry report on 19.12.2012 stating that charge No.1 not proved and charge No.2 proved. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 28.05.2011. However, not satisfying with the explanation given by the petitioner, Enquiry officer has been appointed and he has also submitted his enquiry report on 19.12.2012 stating that charge No.1 not proved and charge No.2 proved. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Report was served on the petitioner as per the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.08.2013, against which, the petitioner has submitted his further representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Not satisfying with his further explanation, the first respondent by his proceedings dated 22.01.2015 ordered a punishment of “Compulsory Retirement”. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court, with this present Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was serving as Inspector of Police at Bazaar Police Station, Ramnad from 24.09.1997, he was taken on special duty to assist the Inspector R.M.Madhavan, who was the co-delinquent, in the investigation of the case in Cr.No.61 of 1997, and on completion of enquiry, the prime accused Krishnamoorthy was produced before the Court on 31.01.1998 and on the same day itself, the petitioner was relieved from the said investigation. Therefore, the question of detaining S.Ramachandran, for the period from 25.01.1998 to 05.02.1998, torturing him to disclose the facts of the case in Cr.No.61 of 1997 does not arise. According to the petitioner, the date of his deputation to assist R.M.Madhavan was from 28.01.1998 to 31.01.1998 and not from 25.01.1998 to 05.02.1998 as stated in the charge no.2. Further, the learned counsel submitted that similar charge framed against the co-delinquent R.M.Madhavan, Inspector of Police was held not proved by the very same enquiry officer. Against the punishment order imposed on the petitioner, he has filed a review petition, which was partly allowed on 03.11.2017, by modifying the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' to 'withholding of increment for three years with cumulative effect'. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent through his Counter affidavit stated that the petitioner was ordered by the then Superintendent of Police, Thiru.P.Kannappan, Ramanathapuram District to assist Thiru.R.Madhavan, Inspector of Police (Co-delinquent), Thondi Police Station in S.P. Pattinam Police Station Cr.No.61/97 vide proceedings in C.No.72/Camp/RMD/98, dated 28.01.1998. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent through his Counter affidavit stated that the petitioner was ordered by the then Superintendent of Police, Thiru.P.Kannappan, Ramanathapuram District to assist Thiru.R.Madhavan, Inspector of Police (Co-delinquent), Thondi Police Station in S.P. Pattinam Police Station Cr.No.61/97 vide proceedings in C.No.72/Camp/RMD/98, dated 28.01.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was deputed to assist in the investigation of Cr.No.61 of 1997 from 28.01.1998. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that there is no records to show that the petitioner was relieved from the investigation, after the arrest of one Krishnamoorthy on 31.01.1998 in Cr.No.61 of 1997. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner had detained one Ramachandran from 25.01.1998 to 05.02.1998, beat him indiscriminately and compelled him to disclose the facts in S.P. Pattinam Police Station Cr.No.61 of 1997. It is submitted that though the charges framed against the petitioner and co-delinquent Thiru.R.M.Madhavan are identical in nature, the witnesses have not deposed anything about the illegal detention of Thiru.Ramachandran by Thiru.R.M.Madhavan for the alleged period or about his torture violating human rights. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry officer could not be termed as biased or unfair. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and perused the available documents. 7. On a perusal thereof would go to show that for the alleged occurrence that took place during the year 1998, the charge memo came to be issued only on 22.04.2011, i,e after a period of 13 years. It is also seen that at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was deputed to assist Mr.R.M.Madhavan, in the investigation of the case in Cr.No.61 of 1997 from 28.01.1998 to 31.01.1998. Further it is seen that the identical set of charge came to be issued as against P.Kannapan, Superintendent of Police was fully exonerated and similar charge framed against R.M.Madhavan, Inspector of Police, the second count of charge was not proved. Whereas, the same second count of charge was proved against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that even the opinion of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was not properly considered. The relevant portion of views of the Tamil Nadu Public Commission is extracted hereunder for better appreciation. “TAMIL” 8. Moreover, it appears that the Disciplinary authority has not considered the explanation of the petitioner properly. It is pertinent to note that even the opinion of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was not properly considered. The relevant portion of views of the Tamil Nadu Public Commission is extracted hereunder for better appreciation. “TAMIL” 8. Moreover, it appears that the Disciplinary authority has not considered the explanation of the petitioner properly. The first respondent being the ultimate fact finding authority ought to have necessarily consider the case of the petitioner in a proper perspective manner and as contemplated under Rule 18(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. In my opinion, the impugned order is cryptic in nature and without application of mind, it has been passed. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in 2008(1) Supreme Today 617, (Divisional Officer, Kottagudem's case), one of the contentions was that the appellate/revisional authorities have failed to consider the grounds raised before them and that the orders passed thereto are cryptic, without any detailed reasons. While dealing with the above said contention, the Supreme Court re-affirmed the decision rendered earlier in R.P. Bhatt's case and Ram Chander vs. Union of India, 1986 (3) SCC 103 and at paragraph 19 of the judgment held as follows:- “19. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum, but in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know atleast the mind of the appellate authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.” 9. In the present case even the observation of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was not considered. 10. The above case is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. There shall be a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date, on which his junior got promotion, with continuity of service and all other attended monetary benefits within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. There shall be a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the date, on which his junior got promotion, with continuity of service and all other attended monetary benefits within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.