The court emphasized the importance of evidence in disciplinary proceedings and the requirement for appellate and reviewing authorities to provide reasons for their decisions, as mandated by Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.

(This Writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.3824 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the respondents especially the third respondent in his proceedings made in P.R.51/F1/2000 under Rule 3(b) dated 6.7.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent on appeal made in C.No.A3/Appeal-56/2000 dated 7.1.2001 and further confirmed on review by the first respondent made in C.N.A1/915/2001 P.R.Review 76/2001, dated 10.3.2002 and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's scale after re-fixing his scale of pay including the increments so far withheld placing him eligible for the difference in the salary arrears with all allowances and attendant benefits.)

In this writ petition, the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect, imposed on the petitioner by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 6.7.2000, as confirmed by the second respondent in appeal on 7.1.2001 and further confirmed in review on 10.3.2002, is challenged.

2. The facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are as under,

(a) Petitioner joined in service as Police Constable Grade-II on 17.1.1986 and he was initially posted at Madurai Rural Armed Reserve. Subsequently he was transferred to Bodi Taluk Police Station during December, 1992; to Tirupparamkundram Police Station during February, 1994; Usilampatti Prohibition and Enforcement Wing during July, 1994; and to Chekkanur Police station during July, 1995. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 1.8.1998 and served in various stations and in April 2001 he was working in Koodalputhur Police Station. Petitioner states that he got a clean record of service and was awarded with nine rewards for his honesty, integrity and efficiency.

(b) It is the case of the petitioner that he was issued with a charge memo dated 30.3.2000 on the allegation that on 13.3.2000 while returning home after finishing Jallikattu guard duty within the Vikramangalam Police Station limits, petitioner made search of the Ambassador Car bearing registration No.TNI 6886 during night hours along with another Grade-I PC.886, on his own accord and without permission from his superior officers and checked the travellers Pushpam, aged about 35 years, wife of Malaichamy; and Vennila, wife of Santhanam, without any instructions from superior officers and received Rs.470/- from them without bringing them to the Police Station.

(c) Petitioner submitted his explanation stating that on 13.3.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. while he was at Usilampatti bus stand, there was a crowd shouting in the bus stand and the petitioner, though was not on duty, enquired the reasons and came to know that one Pushpam and three of her relatives came from Madurai to Usilampatti during odd hours after attending a function at Madurai and as there was wordy quarrel between them in respect of taxi charges to proceed to their village, he, as a duty conscience person and on humanitarian ground, intervened and pacified them, apart from arranging a taxi for them to proceed to their village and the petitioner was not aware about what had happened thereafter and that he went to his village along with the other constable viz., T.S.Manikandan. Petitioner further stated that no complaint was made against him either by the said Pushpam or Vennila as to the alleged receipt of Rs.470/- by the petitioner, but in fact, Pushpam made a complaint against one Ramar, Taxi Driver, and in that regard a case was registered in Crime No.214 of 2000 on 14.3.2000 and even in the said complaint no allegation was made against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as the charge memo was issued based on no complaint, the same is improper and illegal. The case alleged by the petitioner is that the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti, on his own accord recorded statements from the witnesses and issue