Judgment :- P.K.Misra, J. Heard Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Singaravelan learned counsel for the respondents. This petition has been filed by the Government against the order of the Tribunal directing that the Charge Memo issued on the first respondent be issued under Rule 17(a) instead of under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, (hereinafter called the Rules). 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. The first contention is to the effect that the Original Application No.3647 of 2003 filed by the respondent No.1 on 06.11.2003 was finally disposed of on the very next day i.e 07.11.2003 without giving opportunity of hearing to the Government. Even though Prima facie, such a contention is attractive, we are unable to accept such contention on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We find from the impugned order that the present petitioner was represented by Government counsel. It does not appear that the Government counsel had prayed for adjournment for filing any counter. No specific ground has been taken in the affidavit indicating that the Counsel wanted an opportunity for filing counter. In the absence of such specific assertion, we are not able to accept the first submission. 3. Moreover if such submission is accepted we would remit back the matter to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has become non-functional on account of the retirement of the Vice-Chairman and therefore, we have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length on all aspects relating to merit and therefore it is unnecessary to delve deep into the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The second contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to consider as to whether the charge memo should be under Rule 17(a) or Rule 17(b) of the Rules and such discretionary matters should not be interfered with by the Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review. 5. It is well settled that when a charge memo is issued, the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with such charge memo unless the charge memo is arbitrary or is entirely baseless. 5. It is well settled that when a charge memo is issued, the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with such charge memo unless the charge memo is arbitrary or is entirely baseless. It is not necessary to refer several decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect, as it is settled law that only in exceptional cases the Tribunal or the High Court should interfere with the charge memo depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the allegations do not warrant the initiation of the proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Rules which contemplates imposition of major penalties. The Tribunal was fully convinced keeping in mind the nature of the allegations that the charge should have been framed under Rule 17(a) as the charges were not serious in nature. In this connection, it may be pointed out, that even though the Tribunal has not referred to the guidelines issued by the Government for deciding whether the charges could be framed under Rule 17(a) or under 17(b), it is quite obvious that the Tribunal had kept in mind those guidelines. The guidelines are to the following effect. GUIDELINES FOR DECIDING WHETHER CHARGES MAY BE FRAMED UNDER RULE 17(b) (1)Cases in which there is reasonable ground to believe that a penal offence has been committed by a Government servant but the evidence forthcoming is not sufficient for prosecution in a Court of law, e.g., (a)possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income; (b)obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratification; (c)misappropriation of Government property, money or shares; (d)obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without consideration or for a consideration which is not adequate etc., (2)Falsification of Government records. (3)Irregularity or negligence in the discharge of official duties with a dishonest motive. 7. It is not disputed that the charges framed against the petitioner do not come under(1) and (2) of the aforesaid Guidelines. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner come under paragraph 3 of the guidelines. We are unable to accept this submission. 7. It is not disputed that the charges framed against the petitioner do not come under(1) and (2) of the aforesaid Guidelines. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner come under paragraph 3 of the guidelines. We are unable to accept this submission. Even if the action of the respondent No.1 may amount to irregularity or negligence in the discharge of his official duties, there is no whisper in the charge memo or to the effect that it was with any dishonest motive. Moreover, it is not the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there was any dishonesty on the part of respondent No.1 in the discharge of his official duties. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that these guidelines cannot supersede the statutory rules and when the statutory rules are in existence, any Government instruction or guidelines issued contrary to the Government Rules, has to be ignored. There cannot be any dispute that the Executive instructions of Government can only be supplemental to the statutory rules, where statutory rules are silent and such instructions cannot supplant the rules. In the present case, the instructions are intended to be used only as supplemental and they are not intended to supersede the statutory Rules. In the absence of conflict between the guidelines and the statutory rules, the Disciplinary Authority, while issuing the charge memo, was required to keep in mind the guidelines. 9. Apart from the above aspects we find that the present respondent No.1 is to attain the age of superannuation very shortly and was not considered for promotion only because of the issuance of the impugned charge memo. 10. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.