JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in PR.No.7/2003 dated 14.6.2004 and RC.No.B2/17265/2004 dated 5.3.2005 respectively and quash the same and grant such other further relief as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion-II, Avadi on 20.05.1977. He was promoted thereafter as Sub-Inspector of Police, and further, as Inspector of Police in 2002. His name was included in the panel for promotion for the year 2002 and the petitioner was promoted as Inspector on 04.12.2002 and joined duty in the Tamil Nadu Special Police X-Battalion, Ulundurpet, Villupuram District. 2. While serving as an Inspector of Police, in January 2003, the petitioner was heading a Battalion comprising Women Police Constables, when certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner, both anonymously and otherwise. An enquiry came to be initiated and conducted, based upon which charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short 'Rules'). The charges framed read as follows: “TAMIL” 3. The charges are serious and detailed and in summary, allege that the petitioner was found to be in a drunken state and had abused as well as used obscene words against the women constables. It was also alleged that the petitioner had intruded into their quarters without prior intimation, and with a view to interfering in their privacy. 4. Furthermore, the petitioner was stated to have utilized the services of a constable by name R. Indira, permitting her to visit his residence in the guise of taking tuition for the petitioner's daughter on 16.01.2003, 17.01.2003 and 18.01.2003. In all, the conduct of the petitioner, upon preliminary enquiry by the Deputy Commandant, was found reprehensible and unbecoming of a person in public service. 5. The petitioner denied the charges in toto and moved an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging the appointment of the enquiry officer who had been appointed to investigate the charges. In all, the conduct of the petitioner, upon preliminary enquiry by the Deputy Commandant, was found reprehensible and unbecoming of a person in public service. 5. The petitioner denied the charges in toto and moved an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging the appointment of the enquiry officer who had been appointed to investigate the charges. The Tribunal accepted the grievances expressed by him, setting aside the offending appointment of the enquiry officer and directed that an alternate officer be appointed in his place to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. 6. Consequent upon orders of the Tribunal as above, the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police III-Battalion, Veerapuram was appointed as an enquiry officer. The enquiry was completed on 24.03.2004, adverse to the petitioner. The objections raised by the petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the enquiry report and made a detailed representation attempting to meet the report of the enquiry officer and raising various objections thereto before the Disciplinary Authority. The original authority came to pass an order of punishment dated 14.06.2004, confirming all the charges as proved and imposing a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. 7. The order of punishment was carried in first appeal before the Inspector General of Police, who confirmed the same by order dated 05.03.2005. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the appeal filed by him has not been considered in proper perspective and the various grounds raised have not even been adverted to, let alone dealt with in a proper manner. The petitioner would state that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the specific mandate of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (Rules) insofar as, it is non-speaking and does not advert to or answer any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. 8. Learned Government Counsel would defend the impugned orders pointing out the grave nature of the charges levelled as against the petitioner. He would also maintain that the impugned order is a speaking order insofar as the facts noted in the preliminary enquiry and the original order of the Disciplinary Authority had been duly taken note of by the Appellate Authority. 9. He would also maintain that the impugned order is a speaking order insofar as the facts noted in the preliminary enquiry and the original order of the Disciplinary Authority had been duly taken note of by the Appellate Authority. 9. Heard Mr.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the papers. 10. The facts are admitted and thus are not repeated, in the interest of brevity. The main point raised and argued by the petitioner is that the appellate order dated 05.03.2005 does not satisfy the mandate of Rule 6 of the Rules and the requirements thereof. The impugned order reads thus: 'ORDER:- This is an Appeal Petition preferred by R.Ruban, Inspector, TSP Special Force, Veerapuram, formerly in TSP X Bn., Ulundurpet. He was awarded a punishment of “Reduction in Time Scale of Pay” by three stages for three years with cumulative effect by the Dy. Inspr.-Genl. of Police, Armed Police, Chennai, for the following delinquency:- “TAMIL” (2) The Slip Order was acknowledged by the delinquent on 17.06.2004. The appeal is time barred. (3) I have gone through the Appeal. PR and connected records. The points now raised by the appellant, attempt to bring contradiction or no firm commitment in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, who all would say as hearsay only. But, a careful study of this evidences during the preliminary enquiry and oral enquiry, already brings out the behaviour and attitude of the appellant. Similarly, it is well established that, PC Indra, was taken to his house in the garb of imparting music training to his children. An Officer Commanding, particularly of a Women Company, should have exercised much care and caution and should not have given room for such imputation. There is no material to interfere now and hence reject the appeal.' 11. Then again, since Rule 6 has been pressed into service, I deem it appropriate to extract the Rule as well: 'Rule 6. (1) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in rule 2, the appellate authority shall consider: (a) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; (b) Whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and (c) Whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate and after such consideration, shall pass orders. (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction, as it may deem, fit in the circumstances of the case: Provided that (a) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposed to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (e), (3), (h), (i) and (j) of rule 2 and an enquiry under sub rule (b) of rule 3 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions, of sub rule (c) of rule 3, itself hold such enquiry or direct that such enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of sub rule (b) of rule 3 and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such enquiry and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposal on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry, make such order as it may deem it. (b) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties, specified in clauses (d), (e) (3), (h), (i) and (j) of rule 2 and an enquiry under sub rule (b) of rule 3 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, make such order as it may deem fit; and (c) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub rule (b) of rule 3 of making representation against such enhanced penalty. (G.O.Ms.No.2348 Home (Police-III) dt. 26.8.77 w.e.f. 24.1.77). 12. An appellate order has to take note of the disputed facts at play, as marshalled by the lower authorities, being the enquiry report as well as the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and the grounds raised in appeal by the aggrieved party, prior to the appellate authority coming to a reasoned conclusion one way or another. 13. The Rule endows upon the appellate authority wide powers in deciding an appeal. 13. The Rule endows upon the appellate authority wide powers in deciding an appeal. The appellate authority must first establish the facts upon which the impugned order is based, then look into whether the facts as established, afford sufficient ground for imposition of penalty/punishment and thereafter come to a conclusion as to whether the penalty of the punishment imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. 14. The authority may thus confirm the order impugned, enhance, reduce or set aside the punishment, or remit the matter to the lower authority with directions for his guidance. In the present case, a glance at the impugned order dated 05.03.2005 would show that the procedure set out under Rule 6 has been ignored, to say the least. The appellate authority merely refers to his 'careful' study of the enquiry report, which is wholly insufficient to sustain the penalty and the punishment imposed. The logical sequence of procedure set out in Rule 6 calls for a reappraisal of the entirety of the records before him, before he arrives at a decision as to whether the punishment imposed was adequate, excessive or inadequate. The exercise of reappraisal should be visible and reflect application of mind. 15. I draw support from a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of P.Palanikumar Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai-600004 and others ( 2006 (2) CTC 794 ), wherein at paragraph-11, the learned Single Judge states as follows: '11. The grievance of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority have not stated any reasons and passed non-speaking orders is also well founded as the said orders are not in terms of Rules 6 and 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Similar rule, viz. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, having not been followed, Division Bench of this Court in the decisions in Srinivasan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1983 (2) MLJ 513 and M.Nagarajan & Others v. The Registrar, High Court & Another 2004 (3) LW 32 , held that the rule is mandatory in character and the Appellate Authority shall give reasons and shall not pass non-speaking order. The said decisions were followed by me in the order dated 14.2.2006 in K.Kanakaraj v. Inspector General of Police (I & O), Madras & 2 others, W.P.No.27627 of 2005. The said decisions were followed by me in the order dated 14.2.2006 in K.Kanakaraj v. Inspector General of Police (I & O), Madras & 2 others, W.P.No.27627 of 2005. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above referred decisions, I hold that the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority are unsustainable as the authorities have not followed the mandatory provision contained under Rules 6 and 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.' 16. Though the impugned order thus suffers in my view, from the vice of being non-speaking and cryptic, wholly unsupported by any reasons whatsoever, the gravity of the charges levelled as against the petitioner warrant a proper examination of the facts and application of mind to the punishment imposed at the level of the appellate authority. Since this, unfortunately, is not seen to be done, and to ensure that the matter is looked into in a proper manner, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal remanded to the file of R2. For this purpose, R2 shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and dispose the appeal within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, then the impugned order shall stand revived as though the present order had not been passed. 17. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.