Judgment

K. Venkataswami, J.-Special leave granted.

Heard counsel on both sides.

2. The respondent was working as Police Constable in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu. He was proceeded departmentally for the follow­ing charges:-

“(i) Highly reprehensible conduct in having demanded and extract­ed gold jewels weighing 31 grams from one T. Pitachandi Asari, Thangam Jewellers, Alexandria Press Road, Nagercoil, under coercion on 28.5.1983 with other members of crime detective party.

(ii) In having not issued with any receipt to the said T. Pitc­handi Asari, or in not having seized the said jewells under proper mahazar; and

(iii) In not having showed the jewels in any of the crime investigated by the Crime Detective Party.

II. Highly reprehensible conduct as a member of Crime Detective Party;

(i) In not having shown the arrest of one Hentry Victor and Shahul Hameed concerned in CCS. No. 257/83 under Section 457/380 IPC which was registered on 12.5.1983 on the complaint of T. Dennison and keeping the accused for number of days without any record;

(ii) In having not recovered the property under proper mahazar and not properly accounted for the cloths and money recovered from various places in Tamil Nadu.

(iii) In having charged the actual pro­perties recovered in Cr. No. 257/83 under Sections 457, 380 IPC by changing the high quali­ty cloths into cheaper quality of cloths while sending them in Form 95 to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, the receipt of which was acknowledged on 22.7.1983 in R.P. No. 490 of 1983.”

3. The respondent was tried along with one Head Constable and two Police Constables. Regular enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintend­ent of Police, Thuckalay (Kanya­kumari District), who found that the first count of the charge is proved but not the second one. In the meanwhile, the respondent was transferred to Tirunelveli District. The other co-deliquents were also transferred to another neighbouring District. The Disciplinary Authority for the respondent, at the rele­vant time, was the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, who concurred with the Report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by an Order dated 21.4.87. The appeal filed by the respondent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli, was dismissed on 9.12.87. The Review filed to the Director General of Police was also rejected on 5.2.90.

4. Therefore, the respondent moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, by filing O.A. No. 446 of 1991. The Tribunal by an order dated 6.5.96 set aside the order of dismissal mainly on the ground that the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the respondent herein before the impugned order was passed and that the authority competent to pass the order of dismissal was the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. Where the respondent was working when the charge was framed. According to the Tribunal, the transfer was for administrative purpose pending Enquiry and he should have been re-transferred after the enquiry was over and the final order should have been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. One other ground also was given by the Tribunal for setting aside the order of dismissal, namely, that the co-delinquents were let off with­out any punishment except the Head Constable, who was only compulsori­ly retired. Though the charges were identical, the punishment imposed, according to the Tribunal, being discriminatory cannot be sustained.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellants.

6. Mr. Mariarputham, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the first ground of the Tribunal for setting aside the order of dismissal is no longer sustainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar &