The judgment emphasizes the distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings, the limited scope of judicial review in service matters, and the need for punishment to not shock the conscience of the court.

1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 10.06.2004 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect and consequential order passed by the 2nd Respondent ordering recovery of Rs.16,776/-.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as sub Inspector of Police on 28.09.1987 FN. For the delinquencies committed by the Petitioner, Petitioner was placed under suspension from 112. 1989 FN to 20.03.1991 FN, from 01.04.1991 AN to 212. 1991 FN and from 111. 1992 FN to 211. 1992 FN.

3. Petitioner wasserved with a charge memo in PR No.351/H1/1994 u/r 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 on 27.07.1994 for having taken one Thekkamalai to Manapparai Police Station on 26.07.1989 without making any entry in the registers maintained in the Police station and for having confined him illegally and failure to comply with the provisions of the Police Standing Order 145.

4. Petitioner was also charged for gross neglect of duty in having failed to comply with the provisions of order No.145(1)(b) of PSO Vol-I on 27.07.1989 in connection with an allegation of rape by Sub-Inspector of Police- Rajamanickam of Vaiyampatti P.S. Crime.

5. Charge memo dated 15. 1994 was issued by the DIG Tiruchirappalli Range. Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappali was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has drawn minute on 07.08.1997, holding that all three counts of charges proved against the Petitioner. After issuing the 2nd show cause notice and upon consideration of further representation from the Petitioner by the impugned order 1st Respondent has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect for the proved charges u/r 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules) . Second Respondent has also ordered recovery of monetary value equivalent to above punishment amounting to Rs.16,766/-in 24 monthly installments.

6. Elaborating upon various charges the Respondents filed counter stating that the charges leveled against the Petitioner are substantiated through evidences on record. The punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect awarded by the Government and the same was implemented by the 2nd Respondent. According to Respondents, the Government considered the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment for the charges proved against the Petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that even in the absence of any evidence for substantiating charges 1 and 2, Enquiry Officer fell in error in finding the Petitioner guilty on charges 1 and 2. The learned counsel further submitted that one Jebamani was similarly placed as that of the Petitioner challenging the punishment imposed to him in O.A.5620/02 and the punishment imposed upon Jebamani was quashed. It was urged that the Petitioner is similarly placed as that of Jebamani and that the criminal case ended in acquittal. Departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded against and the punishment imposed is liable to be set aside.

.8. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar has submitted that based upon the materials, Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. It was further argued that the Petitioner is not similarly place as that of Jebamani. Placing reliance upon 2005 (1) CTC 625 [The Management of Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2 v. S.Anthonysamy and another] and other decisions the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that acquittal of criminal case is not a bar to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that the Petitioner being a Police officer was expected to maintain strict discipline and the punishment of stoppage of increment of two years with cumulative effect is proportionate