IMPORTANT POINT
Finding recorded by Enquiry Officer and confirmed by appellate authority when based on evidence and were not alleged perverse. It was not open to Tribunal to record contrary finding as if it was an appellate authority.

JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-This appeal was heard along with Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 1994 but we are disposing of the same by a separate judgment.

2. The respondent is a Head Constable and as such a member of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. On 20.7.84 he was served with a charge memo for an act of misconduct committed on 7.7.84 and a departmental enquiry was thereafter initiated against him. The charge was held proved and by way of punishment he was reverted to the lower grade, that is, from Head Constable to Police Constable Grade I. He appealed against that order. As the appellate authority was of the view that the punishment imposed upon the respondent was very lenient it issued a show cause notice to him for enhancement of the penalty. His appeal was dismissed and by way of punishment he was compulsorily retired. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras challenging not only the punishment imposed upon him but also initiation of the enquiry against him. That petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 271 of 1992.

3. The charge against the respondent was that on 7.7.84 he was deputed to attend a case pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. He left the Police Station and returned to it at about 8 P.M. and reported before the Sub-Inspector of Police who was Incharge of the Police Station. At that time he was drunk and was in mufti - During the enquiry evidence was led to prove that the respondent was in a drunken condition, that he had admitted before the Sub-Inspector of Police that he had consumed arrack and that he was in mufti at that time though on duty. The fact that he was in mufti was not disputed but an attempt was made in cross-examination of the witnesses by way of suggestions that he was often suffering from stomach pain and was, therefore, taking medicine. He also examined a doctor in his defence who deposed that for stomach pain he had prescribed medicine known as B.G. Phos and that if sufficient quantity of that medicine is consumed there would be smell of alcohol and eyes would become reddish.

4. The Tribunal held that initiation of the enquiry against the respondent was bad because the charge memo was issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was not an appointing authority and it is a well-settled principle of law that only the appointing authority can take disciplinary action and that the said power cannot be delegated. On merits, the Tribunal considered the evidence as if it was sitting in appeal and held that the evidence was inconsistent and it was not proved "beyond all doubts that he had consumed prohibited liquor". It also held that neither consumption of alcohol by a member of the police force nor appearance in mufti in the police station can be considered as an act of misconduct. It also held that the appellate authority had not conducted the enquiry in the prescribed manner before enhancing the punishment and, therefore, the order passed by him was also bad. It, therefore, allowed the application, quashed the impugned order of punishment and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-State that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that initiation of the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent was not lawful. He submitted that there is nothing in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 which requires that a charge memo has to be issued only by an appointing authority or an authority holding a higher rank. This point is now covered by the decision of this Court in Inspector General of Police v. Thauasiappan1. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that there was no valid initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant was also right in hi