High Court can only correct errors of law committed by lower Tribunal.

P.K. Misra, J.

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner entered service as Police Constable Grade II and was subsequently promoted as Police Constable Grade I in the year 1992. While he was so functioning as Grade I Police Constable, on the basis of a complaint filed by one Murugesan regarding assault by the present petitioner, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police and the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the basis of the findings of the R.D.O., departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The petitioner denied the charges. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the delinquency of the petitioner and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer awarded the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect as per order dated 10.8.1999. The petitioner claims that the punishment was reviewed by the Commissioner of Police who agreeing with the findings of the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer, confirmed the order of punishment. Thereafter, the Director General of Police, in exercise of his suo motu power of review, came to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was grossly inadequate compared to the seriousness of charge of assault and awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect by order dated 25.1.2000. The said order was communicated on 10.2.2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.A.No.1846 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. At the time of entertaining the Original Application, an interim order of stay was passed and by virtue of such order, the petitioner was reinstated in service and continued to serve in the said capacity. Ultimately, the Original Application was heard on merits and dismissed by order dated 12.5.2004. This order of the Tribunal is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. While entertaining the writ petition, initially, an interim order of stay was passed and subsequently such stay has been vacated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. The first contention is to the effect that the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was reviewed by the higher authority and on such review, the order of punishment was found to be proper and therefore, there was no scope for a second review in view of the provisions contained in Rule 15-A(4) of the TNPSS (D&A) Rules. The alternative contention of the petitioner is to the effect that even assuming that second review is permissible in law, the Reviewing Authority has arbitrarily reviewed the order of punishment and has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is grossly disproportionate to the nature of delinquency. In this context, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the original punishment of stoppage of one increment was found to be inadequate, any other suitable punishment, short of compulsory retirement, could have been imposed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the question now raised by the petitioner regarding inapplicability of Rule 15-A(4) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules had not been raised before the Tribunal as such and cannot be permitted to be raised. It is also submitted that at any rate the provisions contained in Rule 15-A(4) do not de-bar higher authorities from invoking the review power. It has been submitted by him that the conclusion of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority that the petitioner had caused a grievous hurt to a private citizen without any justifiable reason, calls for proper disciplinary action and the order pa