ORDER : The prayer sought for herein is to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders in [1] Pro.No.4310/02-2 dated 30.11.2004 of the second respondent; [2] Pro.No.753/EW1/2005 dated 15.2.2005 of the first Respondent, quash the same. 2. The petitioner served as a First Grade Warder in the Central Prison, Salem in the year 2002, where, the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were initiated. 3. Though the Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry, had given report that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the second respondent since was not concurring the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer, had issued a show cause notice giving reasons as to why the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority has come to the conclusion that, the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and pursuant to which, he had decided to punish him, accordingly the second respondent, by order dated 30.11.2004, inflicted the punishment of reduction of pay to the bottom of time scale for a period of two years with effect from 01.12.2004 without cumulative effect. 4. As against the said order of punishment, he preferred appeal to the first respondent, that was also rejected by the order of the first respondent/ Appellate Authority dated 15.02.2005. Therefore, challenging both the orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 5. Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, the charges framed against the petitioner, in fact, had not been proved after full-fledged enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. 6. However, without having considered the said report filed by the Enquiry Officer in proper perspective, the Disciplinary Authority on his own has come to an erroneous conclusion that, the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. 7. 6. However, without having considered the said report filed by the Enquiry Officer in proper perspective, the Disciplinary Authority on his own has come to an erroneous conclusion that, the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. 7. In this context, the learned counsel would further submit that, the charge framed against the petitioner was that, on 08.06.2002 the Jail Doctor one Thangaraj had visited the remand Prisoner one Rajkumar who was taking treatment as inpatient in the Jail Hospital and while so, it was the allegation that, the Jail Doctor had given his cellphone to the Prisoner, who by using the said phone, made a call for few seconds or minutes to some of his near and dear and thereby the said action was not prevented by the petitioner and other Prisoner, who were supposed to prevent the same. 8. In this context, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, two cellphone numbers were given by the Department as if that it was used by the Prisoner to make out a call from one cellphone to another cellphone to talk to his near and dear. However, either of the cellphones were not belong to either the Prisoner Rajkumar or the Jail Doctor Thangaraj. Therefore, that aspect has been clearly considered by the Enquiry Officer and he has given his findings that, the charges were not proved against the petitioner. 9.In this context, the learned counsel would also point out that, on 12.06.2002 there has been a circular issued by the Jail Authorities and it is the case of the prosecution that, such circular was violated by the delinquents i.e., the petitioner and another. Therefore, on that ground also the Disciplinary Authority has decided to inflict the punishment, whereas, this was also taken into account by the Enquiry Officer, who has stated that, the circular was only dated 12.06.2002. Whereas the incident allegedly taken place only on 08.06.2002, therefore, prior to the date of circular, the petitioner violating the circular does not arise. Therefore, on that ground also the Disciplinary Authority has decided to inflict the punishment, whereas, this was also taken into account by the Enquiry Officer, who has stated that, the circular was only dated 12.06.2002. Whereas the incident allegedly taken place only on 08.06.2002, therefore, prior to the date of circular, the petitioner violating the circular does not arise. Despite a clear cut findings given by the Enquiry Officer that there is no oral or documentary evidence, the same were not considered in proper perspective by the Disciplinary Authority and he suo motu passed cryptic orders that the charges had been proved and accordingly, he inflicted the punishment which was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority without applying their mind to look into the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner, hence, both the orders are liable to be interfered with. 10. Per contra, Mr.K.Magesh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that, on the date of incident i.e., on 08.06.2002 at about 10.00 p.m. or few minutes to 10.00 p.m., a call was emanated from one number to another number and this was proved by the call log provided by the Service Provider AIRCEL. 11.He would also submit that, in this context, it is the own admission on the part of the petitioner that, on the date and time mentioned by the prosecution side, the petitioner and another Police Constable one Rajendran were on Para duty and the Jail Doctor Thangaraj having a cellphone in his pocket entered into the dispensary, where, the Prisoner Rajkumar was taking treatment and the petitioner and the said Rajendran prevented the said Jail Doctor Thangaraj for giving any cellphone to the Prisoner Rajkumar. 12. In this context, he relied upon the following statement given by the petitioner as his defence: OTHER LANGUAGE 13. 12. In this context, he relied upon the following statement given by the petitioner as his defence: OTHER LANGUAGE 13. By relying upon this, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that, the charge allegedly framed against the petitioner is that, since he was in Para duty, he had to accompany the visitor i.e., the Doctor when he administering medicine to the Prisoner and at that time, if he found that the Doctor went inside by keeping a cellphone in his pocket, immediately he should have taken preventive measure against the Doctor for the attempt said to have been made by the Doctor to give the cellphone to the Prisoner for facilitating the Prisoner to make a call from that cellphone to his near and dear. Even though it was stated by the delinquent petitioner that he had made an attempt to stop successfully, the subsequent call log provided by the AIRCEL Service Provider has disclosed the fact that, from a particular cellphone call had been emanated at the same time i.e., around 10.00 p.m. on the date i.e. on 08.06.2002. Therefore, it could be easily ascertained that, the call was made through the said cellphone given by Thangaraj to the Prisoner Rajkumar who called his near and dear to talk and therefore, it is the violation of the Jail Manual, hence such a violation was not prevented when the petitioner was in duty, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner can be said to be proved and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority by giving all these reasons only come to a conclusion that, the charges were proved and accordingly, he inflicted the punishment which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, hence, both the authorities' orders in inflicting the punishment and confirming the same, do not warrant interference from this Court. 14. I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 15. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the Enquiry Officer, after having elaborately discussed the issue, has come to the conclusion that, the charges were not proved, but the Disciplinary Authority, even though is empowered to differ with the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer, has given some vague reasons for such a conclusion. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the Enquiry Officer, after having elaborately discussed the issue, has come to the conclusion that, the charges were not proved, but the Disciplinary Authority, even though is empowered to differ with the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer, has given some vague reasons for such a conclusion. However in this context, the learned counsel accepted that, there had been a call on 08.06.2002 at 21.59 hours from cellphone 9842725122 to cellphone 9842755466. 16. Assuming that, a call has been emanated from 9842725122 landed in 9842755466 and since both the cellphones neither belong to the Doctor Thangaraj nor belong to the Prisoner Rajkumar, it cannot be presumed that, the call was made only by the Prisoner on the date and time. 17. However, the Disciplinary Authority also has given a reason for differing the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer, that, the cellphone 9842725122 was in the use of Dr.Thangaraj from 08.02.2002 and in this regard, a certifying letter seems to have been given by the Service Provider AIRCEL on 01.09.2004 and the copy of which also had been annexed along with the notice given by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner on 03.09.2004. 18. In respect of this evidence, which has been mainly depended by the Disciplinary Authority, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a defence that, even if a call had been transpired between the said two numbers and that has been confirmed by the Service Provider, that itself would not be a sole proof to come to a conclusion that, the call was made during the relevant point of time only by the Prisoner, that too from the Prison hospital. 19. Now the charge framed against the petitioner is that, he had not prevented the Doctor who went with a cellphone for providing it to the Prisoner facilitating him to call an outsider. 20. In this context, the very own statement of the petitioner, as quoted herein above, discloses that, the Dr.Thangaraj went inside the dispensary where the Prisoner was taking treatment, with the cellphone. 21. 20. In this context, the very own statement of the petitioner, as quoted herein above, discloses that, the Dr.Thangaraj went inside the dispensary where the Prisoner was taking treatment, with the cellphone. 21. Though in this context, it is the further defence of the petitioner that, he has made an attempt successfully preventing the Doctor from giving cellphone to the Prisoner, the fact remains that, a call has been made and assuming that, the call made from particular number to particular number as mentioned above, is not related to the Dr.Thangaraj or Prisoner Rajkumar, one factor has become clear that, the Dr.Thangaraj went inside the Jail Hospital to treat the Prisoner, with cellphone. Even that kind of permission ought not to have been given and once the petitioner and other delinquent, who are on Para duty come to know that, the Doctor was going inside with the cellphone, he should not have been permitted to go inside the dispensary and proper attempt should have been made to prevent and it should have been brought to the notice of the higher authority like Jail higher ups or Deputy Jail Warder and if that has not been taken place, certainly, it can be construed as a violation of the circular or dereliction of duty, for which alone the charge was framed against the petitioner. Therefore, it can also be construed as a proven charge. 22. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that, the decision or conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority that, the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved, does not warrant any interference. 23. But at the same time, it is to be noted that, the petitioner seems to be one of the good Police Personnel who was working in the Jail, where, in the earlier occasion, for his good job, he was awarded some reward, that has also been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment. However, the Disciplinary Authority has not been influenced with the longer good service rendered by the petitioner and thereby he has inflicted the punishment against the petitioner. 24. However, the Disciplinary Authority has not been influenced with the longer good service rendered by the petitioner and thereby he has inflicted the punishment against the petitioner. 24. Of course for the said proven charge, the petitioner is liable to be punished, but in this context, the petitioner had been punished with reduction of pay for two years without cumulative effect and the said punishment, in the considered opinion of this Court, can be modified into a punishment of reduction of pay for one year without cumulative effect. 25. The reason for such modification is that, the petitioner for his commendable job already been made, was given the meritorious reward by the higher ups and therefore, by taking the said aspect, leniency could be shown by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner. However, such a leniency was not shown in favour of the petitioner and therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the proportionality of the punishment and by thus, making it modified, as stated above. 26. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition. That the impugned order passed by the second respondent/Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority is liable to be sustained, accordingly are sustained, of course with the following modification that, the punishment awarded against the petitioner shall be modified into reduction of pay to the bottom of selection grade time scale of pay for a period of one year alone with effect from 01.12.2004 without cumulative effect. (ii) Needless to mention that, pursuant to the aforesaid modified penalty, the monetary and attendant benefits if any, for which, the petitioner is eligible, the same shall be calculated and be paid to the petitioner. 27. With this observation and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.