Judgment The Original Application in O.A.No.1420 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner entered into service in Highways Department as Junior Engineer on 25.08.1960. The said post was subsequently re-designated as Assistant Engineer. He was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 011. 1988, however, he was reverted on 111. 1989 for want of vacancy. He was deputed to Rural Development Department and he was serving as Assistant Engineer. The designation of Assistant Engineer serving in Panchayat Union is Union Engineer. The petitioner served in Madukkur Panchayat Union during 1982-1983 and 1983-1984. During that time, Bio-Gas plants were erected in the fields/farms/houses of 28 beneficiaries from the funds of Panchayat Union. 3. The investigation into the erection of 28 Bio-Gas plants led to the issuance of charge memo dated 31.01.1992 by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, First Floor, Kuralagam Buildings, Madras –108 against the petitioner and 10 others. Among the said 11 accused persons, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused Officer No.11. While another Union Engineer, Mr.S.Surilirajan was arrayed as Accused Officer No.10. The allegation made in the charge memo was that for 28 beneficiaries, 1 to 25 either denied the supply or erection of Bio-Gas plants in their fields/farms/houses and that the persons mentioned in Sl.Nos.26 to 28 were found to be fictitious and non-existent persons. 4. During the pendency of the enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service, by an order of the Government dated 29.06.1994 5. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings gave its report dated 18.08.1995 holding that the charges against all the accused officers were proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry, after consulting the Public Service Commission, the respondent issued a provisional conclusion on punishment in the letter dated 30.10.1996 proposing to impose a cut in 1/3rd pension permanently. Ultimately, on considering reply given by the petitioner, the respondent passed the impugned G.O.(D).No.631, Rural Development (E3) Department, dated 012. 2000 imposing the penalty of cut in 1/3rd of pension per month permanently. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1420 of 2001 (W.P.No.48530 of 2006) to quash the impugned Government Order. 6. Heard Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. 2000 imposing the penalty of cut in 1/3rd of pension per month permanently. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1420 of 2001 (W.P.No.48530 of 2006) to quash the impugned Government Order. 6. Heard Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though raised many grounds, confined his arguments to Ground e of the affidavit relating to the discrimination shown by the respondent in the matter of imposing punishment on petitioner. Ground e is extracted here under : "e) In the case of V.R.Ganesan A.O.No.7 who has involved in 3 cases of beneficiaries the Government imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect in G.O.1 D No.373 Rural Development (E.III) Department dated 14.08.1996. Similarly in the case of Road Inspector S.Kumarasamy A.O.No.8 the Government leniently imposed the punishment in G.O.1 D.No.372 Rural Development (E.III) dated 14.08.1996. Again in the case of Thiru Shaual Hameed RWO A.O.7 was also dealt with leniently. But in the case of the applicant he has been awarded with major penalty. Hence there is discrimination while awarding punishments to the applicant when similarly situated persons who dealt with leniently. Hence on this ground also the entire punishment is liable to be quashed." .8. The reply to Ground e is found in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: ."16. With reference to paragraph 6(4)(e) on the ground, of the application it is submitted that the punishment awarded to the applicant is appropriate to his position as a technical officer of the Panchayat Union. The final orders quoted by him are irrelevant as far as his position is concerned." .9. When the matter came up on 112. 2009, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to furnish the details of punishment imposed on the Accused Officer No.10, in view of the paragraph 16 of the reply affidavit. Today, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced the details of punishment imposed on the Accused Officers. In view of the categorical stands taken by the respondents in paragraph 16, I am only concerned with the punishment imposed on Mr.S.Surilirajan, Accused Officer No.10, Union Engineer in the same Madukkur Panchayat Union, where the petitioner was also employed. As per the details furnished, Mr.Surilirajan was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. As per the details furnished, Mr.Surilirajan was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. I am not taking in to account the punishment imposed on the three Accused Officers referred to in the Ground e, since, two of those three officers were Road inspectors and one was Rural Welfare Officer. Hence I do not propose to compare the punishment imposed on them with the punishment imposed on the petitioner. .10. When the respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect to Mr.S.Surilirajan, it is not known why they imposed the cut of 1/3rd pension that too permanently to the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the internal page No.45 of the findings of the Tribunal relating to the involvement of accused officers in erecting the Bio-Gas plants. .“TABLE” 11. Mr.S.Surilirajan, as Union Engineer has signed 11 certificates of erection of 11 Bio-Gas plants, while the petitioner signed only two certificates. Therefore, when Mr.S.Surilirajan was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, there is no justification for the respondent to impose cut in 1/3rd pension in the case of petitioner permanently. Hence the impugned order is discriminatory and is liable to be quashed. 12. While quashing the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to first respondent to pass a fresh order imposing appropriate punishment taking into account, the punishment imposed on Mr.S.Surilirajan, Accused Officer No.10 who was also Union Engineer in the same Panchayat Union and who involved in erection of 11 Bio-Gas plants by issuing 11 false certificates, while the petitioner involved in 2 certificates. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.