JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 26.10.2018 passed by this Court in WP No. 5803 of 2017. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 5803 of 2017, the present appeal is filed. 2. The respondent herein has filed WP No. 5803 of 2017 before the learned single Judge praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminated in the first respondent's order of compulsory retirement in Ref.R.C. No. 11383/AP.2 (1)/2009 dated 01.12.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the appellants to reinstate him in service with all consequential monetary, promotional and service benefits. 3. The order dated 01.12.2016, which was challenged before the learned single Judge, was passed by the first respondent, whereby, the first respondent, in exercise of suo motu powers conferred under Rule 15-A(i) (iii) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, modified the order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the second respondent, imposing the punishment of "reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect" into one of "compulsory retirement from service." 4. For the purpose of adjudication of this appeal, certain facts are necessary and they are elucidated hereunder. 5. The respondent herein was recruited as Police Constable in the year 1988. Subsequently, he was promoted as Head Constable during the year 2004. While he was working as Head Constable at Palayamkottai in Tirunelveli District, he was deputed on Special duty during the month of March 2006 along with Thiru. Senthilnathan, Sub-Inspector of Police; Grade I PC 904 Sivaraman and Grade I PC 996 for investigation of a case registered on 24.03.2006 in Palayamkottai Police Station in Crime No.327 of 2006 under Section 302 of IPC and Crime No.331 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 506 (Part-ii) of IPC to arrest the accused concerned in those cases. On 24.03.2006, the petitioner and others visited Nagercoil, KTC Nagar and Chettikulam in search of the accused. Thereafter, they returned to Parvathy Sankar Complex Lodge at 12.45 pm on 27.03.2006 at Vannarapettai where, they, along with the owner of the complex by name Ramesh and his friend Durai @ Selladurai, had a liquor party. On 24.03.2006, the petitioner and others visited Nagercoil, KTC Nagar and Chettikulam in search of the accused. Thereafter, they returned to Parvathy Sankar Complex Lodge at 12.45 pm on 27.03.2006 at Vannarapettai where, they, along with the owner of the complex by name Ramesh and his friend Durai @ Selladurai, had a liquor party. During such liquor party, in an inebriated mood, Sivaraman, Grade IPC is said to have passed some derogatory comments over the modesty of Women Police Constable Prabha, which had resulted in a scuffle between Sivaraman and the respondent herein. At that time, while Sivaraman attempted to go to the bathroom in the ground floor, the respondent is said to have kicked him on his hip. In that process, Sivaraman fell down from the steps of the lodge at about 3.15 am on 28.03.2006 and fainted. Immediately, the respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police Tr. Senthilnathan and the lodge owner had taken the injured Sivaraman to Sorna Snacks Tea Shop, Vannarapettai and laid down him before the said Tea Shop, with an ulterior motive to make the incident look like an accident. Later, at about 04.10 am, the tea shop owner and Mr. Durairaj, Watchman of Sakthi Hospital admitted Sivaraman in the hospital. On the same day at 7.30 am, the said Sivaraman died. However, the incident was not brought to the notice of the superior officers either by the respondent or by the Sub-Inspector Senthilnathan. While so, on the basis of the confession statement of the lodge owner, a criminal case was registered against the respondent and others. The respondent was arrested and in view of his arrest, he was suspended from service on 31.03.2006 afternoon. The department initiated departmental proceeding under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules, against the respondent and others as a measure of taking simultaneous departmental action during the pendency of criminal trial. The co-delinquent Senthilnathan was also under the same charges. The charges are as follows: (i) Gross neglect of duty in having failed to perform the special party duly in Palayamkottai P.S. Cr.No.327 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and 331/2006, U/s.147, 148, 302, 506 (ii) IPC and also committed Grave offence which lead to the death of Grade-I PC Sivaraman. The co-delinquent Senthilnathan was also under the same charges. The charges are as follows: (i) Gross neglect of duty in having failed to perform the special party duly in Palayamkottai P.S. Cr.No.327 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and 331/2006, U/s.147, 148, 302, 506 (ii) IPC and also committed Grave offence which lead to the death of Grade-I PC Sivaraman. (ii) Having tarnished the image of the Police by having used the Parvathi Complex Lodge at Vannarapettai for drinking liquor and caused nuisance in drunken mood (iii) Highly reprehensible conduct in having passed on bad comments over the modesty of WPC 194 Prabha and thereby indulged in scuffle among the fellow police personnel (iv) Having attacked Gr-IPC 904 Sivaraman in grievous manner along with Tr. Senthilnathan, Sub-Inspector of Police which lead to the death of the said Gr.-IPC 904 Sivaraman (v) Having failed to inform the true incident to the superior officers and hidden the facts of the incidents. 6. After completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 20.07.2008 holding that the first four counts of the charges are not proved, but the fifth count namely "having failed to inform the incident to superior officers and hidden the facts of the incidents" was held to be proved. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli District, who is the disciplinary authority, passed an order dated 03.11.2008 awarding the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect to the respondent. As against this punishment order dated 03.11.2008, the respondent has not preferred any appeal. However, when the order of punishment was forwarded to the first appellant, the first appellant/Additional Director General of Police, on 18.02.2009, took the file on record and decided to suo-motu review the order of the disciplinary authority under Rule 15-A(i)(iii) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules, 1955. In connection with the same, the first appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 18.02.2009. Though the respondent did not challenge the order of punishment, he challenged the show cause notice issued by the first appellant in W.P.(MD).No.5347 of 2009. Simultaneously, the respondent also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 18.02.2009. 7. In connection with the same, the first appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 18.02.2009. Though the respondent did not challenge the order of punishment, he challenged the show cause notice issued by the first appellant in W.P.(MD).No.5347 of 2009. Simultaneously, the respondent also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 18.02.2009. 7. In the writ petition filed by the respondent in WP (MD) No. 5347 of 2009, by order dated 29.06.2009, this Court directed the first appellant to consider the representation of the respondent, afford him an opportunity of hearing and pass orders. Accordingly, the respondent was given an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the first appellant passed an order on 07.07.2009 imposing the very same punishment of "compulsory retirement". The said order of compulsory retirement dated 07.07.2009 was again challenged by the respondent in WP No. 16128 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 05.04.2016 set aside the order of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the first appellant for fresh consideration by following the procedures indicated in the order passed in another Writ Petition in W.P.No.14758 of 2009 filed by the co-delinquent Tr. Senthilnathan, Sub- Inspector of Police. 8. After remand, the first appellant gave an opportunity to the respondent by issuing a fresh show cause notice dated 10.11.2016 and directed the respondent to appear before him on 30.11.2016, but he did not appear in person. In the meantime, the respondent sent a representation through post, which was received on 22.11.2016. The first appellant, on a perusal of all the records relating to punishment role, concluded that the explanation offered by the respondent to the show cause notice, was not convincing, as the respondent cannot disown his responsibility for the sake of his colleague. It is further stated that it is a grave matter, as it involved the death of a Police Constable for whatever causes. Further, the first appellant held that the delinquency warranted a punishment and the punishment awarded by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, was in-adequate. Thus, the first appellant imposed the punishment of "compulsory retirement" from service on the petitioner, vide his proceedings dated 01.12.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Writ Petition No. 5803 of 2017 has been filed by the respondent. 9. Thus, the first appellant imposed the punishment of "compulsory retirement" from service on the petitioner, vide his proceedings dated 01.12.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Writ Petition No. 5803 of 2017 has been filed by the respondent. 9. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.10.2018, quashed the order of compulsory retirement from service dated 01.12.2016 and consequently restored the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages without cumulative effect imposed by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is re-produced hereunder "10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid law laid down when the question of proportionality of the sentence imposed in this case is addressed it appears to this Court that there is no finding that the petitioner deliberately did not intimate the unusual death of his colleague to his immediate superior even the same was within his knowledge. Therefore, such delinquency of non-reporting with regard to the unnatural death of the colleague, which could not be established to be a foul play in the criminal trial, cannot be said to be a delinquency so grave warranting punishment of compulsory retirement from service. In such premises, the punishment imposed by the first respondent compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service enhancing the sentence imposed, appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency proved as such the same stands quashed. Consequently, the order of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority stands restored to file." 10. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 5803 of 2017, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants. 11. Mrs.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that, out of the five counts of charges, 1 to 4 count of charges are not proved and 5th count of charge alone was proved. The fifth count of charge relates to non-intimation of the incident by the respondent to the Department. Accepting the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages without cumulative effect. As against the said punishment, the respondent had not preferred any appeal and it had reached a finality. Accepting the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages without cumulative effect. As against the said punishment, the respondent had not preferred any appeal and it had reached a finality. While so, the first appellant, on 18.02.2009, took the file on record and issued a suo motu notice to the respondent under Rule 15 (A) (i) (iii) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 as to why the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority be not enhanced. Though the respondent did not challenge the order of punishment imposed by the second respondent, he challenged the show cause notice issued by the first appellant for suo motu review by filing WP (MD) No. 5347 of 2009. Simultaneously, the respondent had also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 18.02.2009. While so, in WP No. 5347 of 2009, by an order dated 29.06.2009, a direction was given to the first appellant to consider the representation of the respondent by affording an opportunity of hearing and to pass orders. Accordingly, the respondent was given an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, an order was passed on 07.07.2009 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement holding that unbecoming conduct of the delinquent/respondent was clearly established and so the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded was quite adequate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The said order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the respondent by filing WP No. 16128 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 05.04.2018 set aside the order of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the authority for fresh his consideration to pass an order by following the procedures indicated in the order passed in W.P.No.14758 of 2009, dated 28.03.2013 which was filed by co-delinquent Tr. Senthilnathan, Sub-Inspector of Police. 12. After remand, the first appellant issued a show cause notice dated 10.11.2016 and directed the respondent to appear before him on 30.11.2016, but the respondent did not appear in person. In the meanwhile, the respondent sent a representation through Post which was received by the first appellant on 22.11.2016. Senthilnathan, Sub-Inspector of Police. 12. After remand, the first appellant issued a show cause notice dated 10.11.2016 and directed the respondent to appear before him on 30.11.2016, but the respondent did not appear in person. In the meanwhile, the respondent sent a representation through Post which was received by the first appellant on 22.11.2016. Thereafter, the first respondent, on a perusal of all the records relating to punishment role, had concluded that the explanation offered by the respondent is not convincing on the ground that the respondent cannot disown responsibility for the fate of a colleague working with him. It is a grave matter as it involve the death of a police constable for whatever causes. Further, the first appellant held that delinquency warrant a punishment, but the punishment awarded by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli was in-adequate and hence, the first appellant awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against the respondent, vide proceedings dated 01.12.2016. The said punishment imposed by the first appellant is justified. In this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (R.Subbiah, J) was a member, in W.P.No16874 of 2018, dated 05.11.2019 (R. Naraja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, by its Secretary to Government, Home (Courts 1A) Department and another), which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C).No.3835 of 2020. The Division Bench, in the order dated 05.11.2019, held as follows: "19. We are conscious of the fact that the scope of Judicial review in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, is limited to test only the correctness or otherwise of adherence of the decision making process and not the decision of the respondents. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, we can only ensure as to whether the procedural formalities preceding the order of compulsory retirement have been adhered to in the touch stone of principles of natural justice. In other words, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service cannot be interfered with by this Court, unless such conclusion is based on no evidence or irrelevant material. In other words, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service cannot be interfered with by this Court, unless such conclusion is based on no evidence or irrelevant material. In this context, reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar vs. Udaysingh and others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2286, wherein it was held as follows, regarding the scope of the Court in regard to Judicial Review of cases: "10. ...... Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal when the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence.. .... 13. Under the circumstances, the question arises: whether the view taken by the High Court could be supported by the evidence on record or whether it is based on no evidence at all? From the narration of the above facts, it would be difficult to reach a conclusion that the finding reached by the High Court is based on no evidence at all. The necessary conclusion is that the misconduct alleged against the respondent stands proved. The question then is; what would be the nature of punishment to be imposed in the circumstances? Since the respondent is a judicial officer and the maintenance of discipline in the judicial service is a paramount matter and since the acceptability of the judgment depends upon the credibility of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the officer and since the confidence of the litigant public gets affected or shaken by the lack of integrity and character of the judicial officer, we think that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is well justified. It does not warrant interference." 13. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the first appellant, in exercise of his suo motu powers conferred under Rule 15 (A) (i) (iii) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, had enhanced the punishment imposed on the respondent only after affording sufficient opportunity to him. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the first appellant, in exercise of his suo motu powers conferred under Rule 15 (A) (i) (iii) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, had enhanced the punishment imposed on the respondent only after affording sufficient opportunity to him. When such a procedure has been adopted by the first appellant and the respondent was also given a fair opportunity before enhancing the punishment awarded by the second appellant, interference of this Court is not warranted. 14. The learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that even though the learned Single Judge observed that, the interference with the findings of fact recorded in disciplinary proceedings, need not be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, yet, the learned Single Judge interfered with the order passed by the first Appellant. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, reads thus: "7. Before addressing the contention of the parties, this Court is well aware of its limitations to interfere with the finding of fact recorded in a disciplinary proceeding. The law in this regard has since been well settled that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded in the disciplinary proceeding unless the finding is perverse one that is based on no evidence on record and recorded on surmises and conjuncture. Considering the aforesaid when nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court indicating the fact that the petitioner had reported the death of his colleague immediately, his superior, it can very well be said that the finding in this regard recorded by the enquiry officer which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is guilty of negligence of not reporting the same to his immediate authority soon after the same came to his knowledge and as such guilty of negligence needs no interference of this Court." 15. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, the learned Single Judge, having concluded, as above, ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the first appellant in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, the learned Single Judge, having concluded, as above, ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the first appellant in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The learned Special Government Pleader also placed reliance on the order dated 16.09.2019 of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director (Admin and HR) vs. Sri. C. Nagaraju and another in Civil Appeal No. 7279 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 25999 of 2013), wherein it was held that, when an employee was acquitted by the Criminal Court, it will not preclude the Department to impose appropriate punishment and the disciplinary authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court. Further, it was held that the evidence that is produced in the Departmental inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be allowed to continue in service. The observation of the Supreme Court can usefully be extracted as follows: "13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No.1, we are of the view that interference with the order of dismissal by the High Court was unwarranted. It is settled law that acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court, if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceeding, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court." 16. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceeding, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court." 16. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the first appellant in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Further, the charges against the respondent are grave in nature and taking note of the same, the first appellant has rightly enhanced the punishment imposed by the second respondent. She therefore prayed for allowing this appeal. 17. Countering the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, Mr.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that suo-motu review of punishment can be taken up by the first appellant within six months from the date of passing the order of punishment by the second appellant. In the instant case, the order of punishment was imposed by the second appellant on 20.07.2008. But the suo motu review was taken by the first appellant on 18.02.2009, which is beyond six months period. On that score alone, the order of the first appellant has to be set aside. That apart, the punishment imposed by the first appellant is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the delinquent, while so, this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, can always interfere with such punishment. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent did not deliberately fail to intimate the incident to the Department. In any event, for having committed such delinquency, the second appellant had already imposed the punishment of stoppage of time scale of pay by two stage without cumulative effect. Such punishment imposed on the respondent is commensurate with the nature of delinquency proved against the respondent. While so, the first appellant ought not to have enhanced the punishment into one of compulsory retirement. Having regard to the above facts, the learned Single Judge correctly interfered with such punishment awarded by the first appellant and set aside the same. Such punishment imposed on the respondent is commensurate with the nature of delinquency proved against the respondent. While so, the first appellant ought not to have enhanced the punishment into one of compulsory retirement. Having regard to the above facts, the learned Single Judge correctly interfered with such punishment awarded by the first appellant and set aside the same. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 18. We have heard the learned counsels for both sides. Though very many contentions have been raised on factual aspects, the question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the order was passed by the first appellant beyond the period of six months, as contended by the counsel for the respondent. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 15 A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 "15-A. (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (i) the State Government; or (ii) the Head of the Department directly under the State Government, in the case of Government serving in a department or office under the control of such Head of Department; or (iii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed; or........" 19. In this case, the disciplinary authority/second appellant passed the order on 03.11.2008 imposing the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages without cumulative effect. On 18.02.2009, the first appellant had suo motu taken up the case and issued a show cause notice for reviewing the order of punishment imposed by the second appellant. Therefore, the suo motu powers exercised by the first appellant is within the period of six months indicated in Rule 15-A)(i)(iii). On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the order of the second appellant was passed on 20.07.2008 but the suo-motu review was taken up by the first appellant only on 18.02.2009 and therefore, it is beyond the period of six months. Such a submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner is factually incorrect. On 20.07.2008, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai had only sent the proved minute to the respondent and it was not the date on which the order of punishment was passed. Such a submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner is factually incorrect. On 20.07.2008, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai had only sent the proved minute to the respondent and it was not the date on which the order of punishment was passed. The order of punishment was passed only on 03.11.2008 by the second appellant and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has to be rejected. 20. As regards the merits of the case, admittedly, the respondent did not prefer any appeal challenging the punishment imposed by the second appellant. The second appellant imposed the punishment on the finding that count No.5 of the charge has been proved. When we consider count No.5 of the charge, it is a very grave charge. The respondent was in a disciplinary force. He ought to have intimated the death of his colleague, who all along accompanied him, to the Department. Even though the respondent admitted that he did not intimate the death of his colleague to the department, he only submitted that such non-intimation is without any intention. We are not inclined to accept such a submission advanced on behalf of the respondent. The records made available unfolds the presence of the respondent on the fateful day along with the deceased Police Constable. When the factum of death of his colleague is not intimated to the department, an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent/writ petitioner. The non-intimation of death of his colleague by the respondent, speaks volumes about the conduct of the respondent in attempting to suppress the events that had unfolded on the day for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, such non-intimation, in our opinion, is a serious lapse on the part of the respondent. The reviewing authority/first appellant, by considering the entire gamut of the case, awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. Such punishment of compulsory retirement, in our opinion, does not shock our conscience, rather, it is befitting the nature of delinquency committed by the respondent. 21. Though the respondent/writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, it will not be a bar for the first appellant to modify or vary the punishment imposed by the second appellant. Such punishment of compulsory retirement, in our opinion, does not shock our conscience, rather, it is befitting the nature of delinquency committed by the respondent. 21. Though the respondent/writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, it will not be a bar for the first appellant to modify or vary the punishment imposed by the second appellant. It is needless to mention that the acquittal of the respondent in the Criminal Case is not on merits, but the Criminal Court has concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case against the respondent by legally acceptable evidence. It does not mean that the Criminal Court had given a clean chit in favour of the respondent. In any event, the acquittal of the respondent by the Criminal Court, will not preclude the Department from initiating the Departmental proceeding against the respondent for the lapses or misconduct committed by him while he serves a disciplinary force. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the punishment awarded by the Second Appellant, in exercise of his suo motu powers conferred under Rule 15-A of the said Rules. We find considerable force in such submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant. In matters of this nature, judicial review is not permissible, unless it is shown that the first appellant did not follow the procedures contemplated under law or the conclusion reached by the first appellant is materially irregular or based on irrelevant or no materials. None of these parameters can be applied in this case. The first appellant, with a view to adhering to principles of natural justice, issued show cause notice to the respondent seeking his view, before enhancing the punishment. The first appellant also took note of the magnitude of the delinquency committed by the respondent to conclude that the punishment imposed on him by the second appellant is grossly disproportionate to the proved lapses. In effect, the first appellant, after taking note of all the attendant circumstances with respect to the delinquency committed by the respondent, has enhanced the punishment into one of compulsory retirement. While so, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the first appellant by allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. In effect, the first appellant, after taking note of all the attendant circumstances with respect to the delinquency committed by the respondent, has enhanced the punishment into one of compulsory retirement. While so, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the first appellant by allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. In such view of the matter, we hold that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the Writ Appeal has to be allowed. 23. In the result, we set aside the Order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.5803 of 2017. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.17739 of 2019 is closed.