M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

By consent, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner made a challenge to the show cause notice by filing W.P(MD).No.14300 of 2011 and one of the grounds urged was that in respect of co-delinquent, namely, C.Vijaya Baskar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, suo motu review was done by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City and against whom also, show cause notice was issued and it was put to challenge in W.P(MD).No.13611 of 2011 and vide its order dated 12.07.2013, it came to be quashed and no appeal was filed and as such, the impugned show cause notice issued by the appellant herein is also liable to be quashed. The learned Judge after taking into account of the said submission found that the order dated 12.07.2013 in W.P(MD).No.13611 of 2011 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and quashed the impugned show cause notice and challenging the legality of the same, the official respondents in the said Writ Petition has filed this Writ Appeal.

3. Mr. A.K. Baskara pandiyan, learned Special Government Pleader has drawn the attention of this Court to 15(A)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rule') and would submit that the Head of the Department means, the Director General of Police and admittedly, the review was done by another appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city and as such, it cannot be construed as review and taking into consideration the nature of allegations levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner and the gravity of the delinquency has rightly issued the show cause notice calling upon him as to why one of the punishments culminated in 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, should not be imposed and further contend that the impugned order allowing the Writ Petition came to be passed solely on the basis of the order dated 12.07.2013 made in W.P(MD).No.13611 of 2011 cited supra and challenging the legality of the said order, W.A.(MD).No.686 of 2015 has been filed by the official respondents and it was entertained by this Court also and it is pending disposal and therefore, prays for interference.

4. Per contra, Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 29.09.2015 made in W.A.(MD).No.775 of 2014, wherein, the Director General of Police, Chennai-4 v. P.Selvaraju, dated 29.09.2015 and yet another judgment dated 16.09.2016 made in W.A.(MD).Nos.604 and 720 of 2016, the Secretary to Government, Chennai v. The Director General of Police, Chennai and would submit that in similar circumstances, the scope of review of 15A(1)(ii) as well as exercise of suo motu power was considered by this Court and held that once suo motu power was considered, another review is not possible and dismissed the Writ Appeals filed by the Government and since the respondent herein is also similarly placed person, prays for the dismissal of this Writ Appeal.

5. This Court has paid its best attention and also perused the materials available on record.

6. The petitioner while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, NIB, CID, Dindigul Unit, was issued with a charge memo and enquiry officer found that charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved and the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner of Police, (South Zone), Chennai has disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and deserved to be dropped and the head of the department, namely, Commissioner of Police in the service reviewed the same on 31.03.2011 and he did not disturb the order of the Joint Commissioner of Police, (South Zone), Chennai dated 04.02.2011, wherein, he has held that the respondent herein has been exonerated from all the charges. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Director General of Police, Mylapore, would a