S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE management of State Bank of Mysore being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th April, 2002, passed in W. P. No. 40754 of 2001 (M. S. Srinivasan v State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore) has preferred this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant-Bank to reconsider the application filed by the respondent dated 15-2-2001 seeking his retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 27-1-2001. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted in brief in the first instance and they are as follows.- at the relevant point of time, the respondent was serving as an officer in the Middle Management Grade Scale III (MMGS-III) in the services of the appellant-Bank. A charge memo was issued on 22-9-2000 to the respondent alleging certain misconduct. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the management having held departmental enquiry, submitted his report on 27-3-2001 holding that the charge is not proved. Ultimately, the management accepting the above finding of the Enquiry officer passed an order on 26-7-2001 exonerating the respondent from the charge. In the meanwhile the management framed a Voluntary retirement Scheme which was brought into force with effect from 27-1-2001. Under the scheme, the eligible persons were permitted to submit their applications between 14-2-2001 and 28-2-2001. Taking advantage of the scheme, the respondent submitted his application on 15-2-2001. But, his application was rejected by the management by issuing an endorsement dated 30-3-2001 pointing out that the respondent is ineligible to seek the relief under the scheme vide para 02-B of the Scheme dated 27-1-2001. ( 3 ) THE respondent being aggrieved by the above endorsement marked as Annexure-C in the writ petition preferred W. P. No. 40754 of 2001 praying for writ of certiorari to quash the said endorsement and also for a direction to the management of the appellant-Bank to accept his application dated 15-2-2001 and permit him to retire voluntarily under the scheme and to grant all consequential benefits including payment of ex gratia and other retiral benefits together with interest thereon at 18% p. a. from 30-3-2001 until payment. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was opposed by the management of the appellant-Bank by contending that the respondent was not eligible to apply under the scheme because during the relevant period i. e. , between 14-2-2001 and 28-2-2001 disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were pending. Notwithstanding this opposition raised by the management of the appellant-Bank, the learned Single Judge having taken into consideration the fact that subsequently the respondent was exonerated from the charge by the management itself, allowed the writ petition in part and issued a direction to the management of the appellant-Bank to reconsider the application of the respondent dated 15-2-2001 for permission to retire from service voluntarily under the scheme within the stipulated time of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal and another appeal being W. A. No. 5156 of 2001 which was clubbed with the said appeal, the respondent filed I. A. No. 2 of 2002 for a direction to the appellant-Bank to furnish the names of similarly circumstanced officers/employees whose applications have been accepted under the scheme along with copies of charge-sheets issued against them in disciplinary proceedings and pending as on the period between 14-2-2001 and 28-2-2001 and orders of the Disciplinary Authority, if any, in each such case. It appears that obviously in pursuance of the prayer made in the above I. A. , the management of the appellant-Bank was directed by the Bench to file an additional statement with regard to the allegation. Accordingly on 9-12-2004, the additional statement was filed by the appellant-Bank and that was followed by an affidavit sworn to by the Chief Manager (Disciplinary Proceedings Department) of the appellant-Bank annexing a statement of orders passed from 24-2-2001 to 31-3-2001 by the disciplinary Authority. Annexure-Rl is a statement giving details of orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority between 14-2-2001 and 31-3-2001. ( 6 ) WE have heard learned Counsels for the parties. Annexure-Rl is a statement giving details of orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority between 14-2-2001 and 31-3-2001. ( 6 ) WE have heard learned Counsels for the parties. ( 7 ) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for appellant would contend that in terms of para 02-B of the Scheme, an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, is ineligible to apply under the scheme and since admittedly disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent between 14-2-2001 to 28-2-2001, he was not entitled to make an application under the scheme and, therefore, the management of the Bank was justified in rejecting his application. ( 8 ) PER contra, Sri Prasanna, learned Counsel for the respondent would draw our attention to the documents produced by the appellant-Bank itself with its additional statement dated 9-12-2004 and the affidavit dated 3-2-2005 and submit that the management is guilty of practising invidious discrimination in the matter of extending the benefit of the scheme to similarly circumstanced employees. Sri prasanna would contend that the respondent and the persons whose details are set out in Annexure-Rl appended to the additional statement of the Bank dated 9-12-2004 and Annexure-R2 appended to the affidavit dated 3-2-2005 are similarly circumstanced persons in the sense that disciplinary proceedings were pending against all of them when the scheme came into force on 27-1-2001 and admittedly all of them made applications under the scheme notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against them. Sri Prasanna would contend that the management of the appellant-Bank which is a 'state' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to practice invidious discrimination violating Article 14 postulates. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, Sri Narasimhan would highlight that the respondent and others whose details are set out in Annexures-R1 and R2, referred to above, cannot be regarded as persons similarly circumstanced in the sense that the charge levelled against the respondent is very serious in nature compared to the charges framed against the others. ( 10 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties for considerable time, the first question that arises for decision making is that whether the learned Single Judge is justified and acted legally in directing the management of the appellant-Bank to reconsider the application of the respondent dated 15-2-2001 for permission to retire from service voluntarily under the VRS Scheme dated 27-1-2001? ( 11 ) "likes should be treated alike" is a constitutional creed flowing from Article 14 postulates. The State Bank of Mysore being a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 is bound by this constitutional prescription and its action wherever and whenever it operates should reflect this value. Annexures-Rl and R2 appended to the additional statement and affidavit of the appellant-Bank dated 9-12-2004 and 3-2- 2005 respectively would in unmistakable terms disclose that the persons whose applications have been accepted by the management of the Bank and who were allowed to retire voluntarily under the scheme are similarly circumstanced with the respondent in the sense that as on the date the VRS Scheme came into force, i. e. , 27-1-2001, against all of them disciplinary proceedings were pending. Simply because in certain cases disciplinary proceedings were concluded before the cutoff date 28-2-2001 or 30-3-2001, as the case may be, that fortuitous circumstance should not be put against the respondent. By virtue of the final order made by the Disciplinary Authority on 26-7-2001, the respondent is exonerated from the charge honourably, that means, the charge memo against him is totally unjustified and illegal. Be that as it may, the Bank's management apparently is found to have practised invidious discrimination in not extending benefits of the scheme to the respondent. Therefore, its action should be condemned as violative of article 14 postulates. ( 12 ) IN that view of the matter, we do not find any justification to interfere with just order made by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .