3. As seen from the evidence available on record, it is not in dispute that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the Woman Police Constable, by name, Amudha, who had visited the official residence of the petitioner. The quarrel had taken place in the presence of the family members of the petitioner. The petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police at the time when the incident happened i.e., on 28.05.2014. He is a superior officer to that of Amudha, who was only a Police Constable at the time of the incident. The incident happened in late night hours at 11.00 p.m., on 28.05.2014. Only based on the evidence available on record and in view of the undisputed fact that the quarrel had taken place between the petitioner and the Woman Police Constable Amudha in his official residence at late night hours on 28.05.2014, the Enquiry Officer has held, in his enquiry report, that the petitioner is found guilty of the charge framed against him. Only based on the enquiry report, the third respondent has passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2015 imposing a punishment of increment cut for a period of one year without cumulative effect on the petitioner. The Appellate Authority, namely, the first respondent, by his order dated 31.01.2019, has also upheld the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the third respondent / Disciplinary Authority under his order dated 18.05.2015. When the quarrel and the
