ORDER

1. The respondent was charge-sheeted for certain misconduct and on enquiry it was found that the charges have been established. On that basis, the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing the respondent from service. On appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment to that of "compulsory retirement". Still aggrieved the respondent preferred an application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the charge-memo was issued not by the appointing authority but by a different authority and after reappreciating the evidence as if it was an appellate forum, the Tribunal independently came to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to hold that the charges were established. On that ground the Tribunal set aside the order compulsorily retiring the respondent. The State, aggrieved by that order has come up in this appeal.

2. Mr. Mariarputham, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the view of the Tribunal that the charge-memo was not issued by the disciplinary authority, the further proceedings were illegal, was not accepted by this Court in the judgment reported in Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan ((1996) 2 SCC 145