JUDGMENT :

Subramonium Prasad, J.

(Prayer Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25/1/2018, made in W.P.No.27790 of 2012.)

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, has filed the instant writ appeal, challenging the order, dated 25/1/2018, passed in W.P.No.27790 of 2012.

2. Shorn of details the brief facts, leading to the filing of the writ appeal, are as under:-

(i). The petitioner while working as Head Constable, in Vellore Traffic Police Station, was issued with a charge memorandum, on 16/1/1999. Charges framed against the writ petitioner are as under:-

(i). Unbecoming conduct of Policeman in having behaved in an indecent manner in a public place at Chitra wines on 24/11/1998 at 22.15 hours, at Cheyyar and thereby bringing discredit to the Department.

(ii). Indiscipline conduct in having left the Headquarters without getting leave or prior permission from any of his superior officers.

3. A criminal case was also registered, against the respondent/writ petitioner and the Department also proceeded ahead with the enquiry. Charges against the respondent herein were proved during the enquiry proceedings. Disciplinary Authority, by its order, dated 15/11/1999, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and awarded the respondent punishment of “removal from service”.

4. The respondent filed an appeal, before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore range, who dismissed the petition, as time barred, by an order, dated 23/10/2000. The review petition was also rejected, by the Inspector General of Police (L & O), Chennai, on 13/3/2001.

5. The above mentioned orders passed by the appellate authority and reviewing authority were challenged, in W.P.No.4944 of 2006. This Court, by order, dated 20/11/2011, disposed of the writ petition, directing the Deputy Inspector General of Police, to consider and dispose of the appeal. This time, the appellate authority considered the case, on merits. The Appellate Authority found that even though the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been acquitted in the criminal case, the enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documents Ex.P.1 to P.5, came to the conclusion that the respondent/writ petitioner had behaved in an indecent manner, in a public place and that therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of punishment imposed for proved misconduct. The Appellate Authority, therefore, affirmed the order of removal from service and found that the said order is not excessive, considering the charges which have been proved against the writ petitioner. The Appellate authority held that unbecoming and in disciplinary conduct, cannot be tolerated, in the disciplinary force.

6. The writ petitioner/appellant challenges this order in Writ Petition No.27790 of 2012. The learned Single Judge by order, dated 25/1/2018, impugned herein, found that the misconduct had been proved. However, the learned Single Judge found that the punishment is harsh and excessive, considering the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had put in 28 years of service. The learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the order of removal of service and imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has directed the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to get all other attendant and consequential benefits on such compulsory retirement.

7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore District, has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in the instant writ appeal.

8. Heard Mr. R.Udaya Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Ms. Jasmine Padma for Mr. L. Chandrakumar for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

9. Misconduct has been proved. It is settled law that the enquiry officer has to only consider the evidence produced before him by the State and the delinquent. Enquiry Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, c