Judgment : 1. The writ petition is directed against the order of punishment imposed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 05.12.2003 in PR.No.110/2001 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent and as modified by the Appellate Authority/3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 03.05.2004 and confirmed by the 4th respondent to quash the same and to direct the respondents to refix the petitioners pay with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The brief facts relevant for consideration herein are - The petitioner was during August 2001 issued with charge memo for his alleged misconduct of sending anonymous complaints containing false allegations against the superior officers and co-police personnel during April and May 2001 and the same is followed by the enquiry initiated against the petitioner resulting in the enquiry officers findings holding the charges against the petitioner to be proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was, on the basis of the enquiry report, imposed punishment of reduction of increment by two stages for two years and postponement of future increment for two years by the disciplinary authority and the punishment was modified by reduction of increment by one stage for one year and postponement for future increment for one year by the appellate authority and the same was confirmed by the 4th respondent in the review petition. 3. The correctness and the validity of the entire disciplinary proceedings and the out come of the same are now challenged before this court mainly on the ground that the same is discriminatory in nature and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is seriously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the charge memo two more co-police personnel one in the cadre of Head Constable and another in the cadre of Grade-I Police Constable are shown as co-delinquents. Whereas, no charge memo is issued to the co-delinquents and no enquiry was initiated against them. But they were treated as the witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the findings of the enquiry officer is mainly based upon the statement made by them before the enquiry officer. 5. Whereas, no charge memo is issued to the co-delinquents and no enquiry was initiated against them. But they were treated as the witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the findings of the enquiry officer is mainly based upon the statement made by them before the enquiry officer. 5. The petitioner has also in support of his arguments that when the department was of the view that more than one employee were involved in the same incident, the department should proceed against all or should not proceed against none relied upon the judgment of our High Court reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 191 in N.Nandagopalan Vs. Secretary to Government Personnel and Administration Reforms(Q) Department, Chennai. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would try to justify the disciplinary proceedings initiated against and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that the other two police personnel Mohandass and Nadanasabapathy as referred to in the writ petition were not at all involved in the alleged act and the role played by them was very insignificant not amounting to any mis-conduct on their part. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and also perused the materials available herein. 8. The reading of the statement of allegations appended to the charge memo enclosed at page 4 of the typed set of papers reveals that one Head Constable-Mohandass and Grade-I Police constable-Nadanasabapathy were also alleged to have involved in the alleged act along with the petitioner. The allegations raised in the charge memo issued to the petitioner was that he sent anonymous complaints containing frivolous allegations against the superior officers and co-police personnel. In the statement of allegations it is clearly stated that anonymous complaints were dictated by the petitioner and written by Grade-I Police constable-Nadanasabapathy and thereafter, the letters were handed over to Head Constable-Mohandass for getting it typed and the Head Constable-Mohandass took the same to one Aravind typewriting centre located near District Collector office, where the letters were typed and the typed letters were handed over to the petitioner, who in turn took sufficient xerox copies of the same and forwarded the same complaints to the superior officers and one of such copies was personally handed over by the Head Constable-Mohandass to Superintendent of Police, Periyanayakkanpalayam division. Thus the statement of allegations proceeded as if Head Constable-Mohandass and Grade-I Police constable-Nadanasabapathy allegedly assisted the petitioner in sending anonymous complaints. It is also further stated therein that the complaints were enquired by Periyanayakkanpalayam Deputy Superintendent and Special Branch Inspector who arrived at the conclusion that the complaints contained false allegations and they recommended for initiating action against the petitioner and two others and the statement were obtained from two other police personnel on 21.05.2001 and 24.05.2001 in this regard. 9. However, no charge memo was admittedly issued to Head Constable-Mohandass and Grade-I Police constable-Nadanasabapathy and no departmental enquiry was also initiated against them. It is no where stated in the counter also as to why and under what circumstances departmental enquiry was dispensed with in respect of other two police personnel. 10. Though, the learned Additional Government Pleader attempted to justify the failure to take action against other two police personnel, as if the other two persons had only written the letters as dictated by the petitioner and did nothing further to share mens rea of the petitioner, the same runs contra to the statement of allegations. It is not anybodys case, that the petitioner is superior to the head and Grade-I Police constable and they are bound to obey the petitioner. As the petitioner and the Head Constable-Mohandass were of the same cadre the question of arriving at any conclusion that the other two police personnel were under any sort of compulsion to abide by the instructions of the petitioner does not at all arise herein. The acts allegedly committed by the other two police personnel, that one written the complaint as dictated by the petitioner and other one took the same to the typewriting center for typing and returned to the petitioner to send it to the superior officers and even one of them personally handed over the complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police would amply show that the other two persons played similar and equal role in the commission of the act amounting to misconduct but in respect of which the petitioner alone was issued charge memo. There is absolutely no reason much less valid reason put forth as to on what basis they were treated as innocent. 11. There is absolutely no reason much less valid reason put forth as to on what basis they were treated as innocent. 11. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the statement of allegations appended to the charge memo issued to the petitioner revealed more or less equal role played by the other two in the act complained of and the failure on the part of the department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against other two persons, but to do so, only against the petitioner amounts to serious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same view is expressed by our High Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 191 referred to in the forgoing para. In the earlier case dealt with by our High Court totally 28 persons were involved in the same incident constituting mis-conduct and departmental proceedings was held only against the petitioner therein and our High Court was after analysing the entire facts and by following the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1998 (2) SCC 407 in Director General of Police and others V. G.Dasayan and another decision of out High Court reported in 2002 WLR 449 in TR.Venkatachary V. Special Officer, Corporation of Madurai and another pleased to quash the proceedings as discriminatory in nature. 12. Our High Court has in 2002 WLR 449 in TR.Venkatachary V. Special Officer, Corporation of Madurai and another case referred to the earlier judgment of Honble Division Bench of our High Court reported in 1997 WLR 536 in Rajamanickam vs. Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., the Supreme Court in Sengara Singh v. State of Pubjab 1983 (4) SCC 225 the observation of Honble Division Bench of our High Court in 1997 WLR 536 in Rajamanickam case and the learned single Judge in 2002 WLR 449 in TR.Venkatachary are as follows : "26. We are of the view that there is no iota of evidence which would differentiate the case of the present appellant from that of the other employee Meenakshisundaram. This discrimination is writ large on the record and the Court cannot overlook the same. Therefore, we see no justification in treating the appellant differently without pointing out how he was guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in this case was higher than compared to that of Meenakshisundaram. This discrimination is writ large on the record and the Court cannot overlook the same. Therefore, we see no justification in treating the appellant differently without pointing out how he was guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in this case was higher than compared to that of Meenakshisundaram. Learned Counsel for the management failed to explain to us the distinguishing features and therefore, we are satisfied in putting both of them in the same bracket. Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the treatment meted to the present appellant suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and Article 14 forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to denial of equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court must accordingly interpose and quash the discriminatory action. In the light of the similar factual position, I am of the view that the principle laid down in the above Division Bench judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, I have referred to the nature of charges levelled against all the 3 persons as seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner of the Corporation, dated 14.11.86. In the absence of any explanation before me as to how the petitioner was guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of dereliction of duty in this case was higher than compared to that of the other two persons, as observed by the Division Bench, I am of the opinion that the present action against the petitioner is undoubtedly hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 13. Following the same our High court has in 2006 (3) MLJ 191 case observed as follows : 9. It is well settled in law that if employees are involved in the same incident, the Department should proceed against all or should not proceed against none. There is no discretion to proceed against some of employees and no action against the other employees, since they are identically placed and their involvement being identical. In the instruction submitted by the Government advocate, it is not stated as to how the petitioners involvement is not similar to other 28 persons. There is no discretion to proceed against some of employees and no action against the other employees, since they are identically placed and their involvement being identical. In the instruction submitted by the Government advocate, it is not stated as to how the petitioners involvement is not similar to other 28 persons. In the absence of such distinct feature, the proceedings conducted by the respondent against the petitioner and imposing punishment on the basis of the charge is illegal and hence the impugned order is set aside. 14. The same ratio is in my considered view also squarely applicable to the present case in equal force and the entire disciplinary proceedings against and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner in the same do suffer from serious discrimination offending Article 14 of the Constitution are hence liable to set aside. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.