Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Government in G.O.(2D) No.411, Revenue Ser 2(2) Department dated 30.7.2009, by which in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the Government passed final order of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner for the proved charges. 2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Excise at Kancheepuram and his date of superannuation was 31.7.2009. It was, one day before the date of his retirement, the impugned order of punishment came to be passed against him, which was served on him on the date of retirement viz., 31.7.2009. 3. For the alleged occurrence stated to have taken place in the year 1999, when the petitioner was working as Special Tahsildar, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, a charge memo came to be issued against him on 6.7.2005 under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and the order of compulsory retirement is challenged on the ground that there was inordinate delay in initiating and finalizing the disciplinary proceedings. The allegation leveled against the petitioner in the charge memo dated 6.7.2005 is that between 3.9.1998 and 15.7.1999, the petitioner sent a list of 63 beneficiaries for issuing patta to landless Adi Dravidars and later it was found that the pattas issued to 60 of them were to be cancelled since they were not entitled for getting such pattas and therefore, the petitioner failed to verify the genuineness of the persons found in the list of beneficiaries stated to have been prepared by the predecessor of the petitioner, by name, Thiru P.Ananthakrishnan. 4. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner it was stated that the petitioner has only forwarded the list prepared by his predecessor and he has nothing to do with the same. In the award enquiry conducted by the petitioner on 25.11.1998 at Uthumalai village, there was no objection received from any public. Mrs.Jothi Nirmala, District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It is stated that the proceedings were initiated against his predecessor, Thiru M.Ramalingam and his successor Thiru D.Jeyapaul, however, the Enquiry Officer, while exonerating those two persons, only found fault with the petitioner on the ground that he ought to have verified the names even though it was prepared by Thiru Ananthakrishnan. It is stated that the proceedings were initiated against his predecessor, Thiru M.Ramalingam and his successor Thiru D.Jeyapaul, however, the Enquiry Officer, while exonerating those two persons, only found fault with the petitioner on the ground that he ought to have verified the names even though it was prepared by Thiru Ananthakrishnan. The Enquiry Officer’s report was furnished and the petitioner gave further representation on 22.3.2007 stating that the Enquiry Officer had adopted double standards since she found fault with the petitioner while exonerating the other two persons. Without considering the same, the Government passed the impugned G.O. by accepting the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and the said order is challenged on various grounds that the order is arbitrary; that the petitioner conducted the award enquiry at Uthumalai village and confirmed the list of beneficiaries already prepared by his predecessor Thiru Ananthakrishnan and that there was no complaint from the public. It was due to the pendency of the proceedings for a long time, his promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer has been affected and therefore, he has filed the writ petition, challenging the Government Order. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that while working as Special Tahsildar (ADW), Tenkasi, the petitioner submitted a proposal to the Adi Dravidar Welfare Office, Tirunelveli for the issue of free house site pattas to 63 beneficiaries in Survey Nos. 527/3 and 528/4, Uthumalai village in Veerakaralampudur taluk, based on which free pattas were issued to the said 63 persons on 19.8.1999 and after enquiry it was found that out of 63 persons, 60 were not eligible to get free house site pattas and the District Collector, Tirunelveli cancelled the pattas in respect of those who were found not eligible on 16.8.2004 and in those circumstances, charges were framed against the petitioner under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for having not taken effective steps to verify the list prepared by his predecessor, Thiru P.Ananthakrishnan. a) It is stated that after the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, copy of the report was served on the petitioner and after receiving his explanation, views of various departments were obtained and after consulting with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the impugned order came to be passed. a) It is stated that after the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, copy of the report was served on the petitioner and after receiving his explanation, views of various departments were obtained and after consulting with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the impugned order came to be passed. b) It is stated that it was based on the complaint received from the villagers, the enquiry was conducted, in which it was revealed that the petitioner was negligent and the delay was caused due to the reason that only after receiving the complaint, the negligence of the petitioner came to light and charge memo was issued. c) It is stated that the petitioner should have verified that the beneficiaries were permanent residents of the village and their income was less than Rs.12,000/-per annum and they possessed no house site patta and they were not minors or unmarried and so on. It is stated that even though it was stated by the petitioner that he conducted enquiry on 25.11.1998 and there was no objection from the public, it was in 2003 when the enquiry was conducted, it came to know that pattas were issued to the persons who were living in other Districts and who were also relatives of the petitioner working in the Government departments and therefore, the lapse committed by the petitioner on the face of it available. d) It is stated that his predecessor prepared the list 1= years before and that was signed by the petitioner without proper verification after four months from the date of his assumption of charge. e) As far as Thiru Ramalingam is concerned, it is stated that he only worked for three months between 24.5.1998 and 31.8.1998 and pattas issued by him pertained to different survey Nos.531/3B, 527/1 and 528/2 and there also, his predecessor Thiru Ananthakrishnan prepared the list on the basis of which pattas were issued and therefore, the said Ramalingam was placed in different position. f) As far as Thiru Jeyapal is concerned, he was the successor to the petitioner and he was also holding the post for three months from 16.7.1999 to 28.10.1999 and pattas were issued on 19.8.1999 within one month from the date of his assumption of charge and therefore, he was not found to be involved in the said incident and the exemption of the two individuals is not for any other reason. The impugned order came to be passed after closely verifying the records and it is not in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the role of the said Ramalingam as well as Jeyapal is entirely different. 6. Mr.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to two individuals who are similarly situated, would submit that there was discrimination in exonerating them. He would also submit that there was delay on the part of the respondents in issuing charge memo in respect of the incident stated to have taken place in the year 1998 and the charge memo came to be issued in 2005 and the final order was passed in 2007. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that there should be no comparison between the petitioner and other two persons viz., Ramalingam and Jeyapal, who had worked only for few days. It is his submission that the predecessor Ananthakrishnan prepared the list of beneficiaries about 1= years before and that was just forwarded by the petitioner without even verifying the correctness of the same and the punishment is proportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. 8. On the facts of the present case, the comparison of the petitioner with other two individuals viz., Ramalingam and Jeyapal is not acceptable inasmuch as it is not in dispute that Ramalingam and Jeyapal were working before and after the petitioner’s position respectively and they were working for three months? period and no much activity was conducted by them in the matter of sending of the list of beneficiaries. period and no much activity was conducted by them in the matter of sending of the list of beneficiaries. But, as far as recommending the beneficiaries list of 63 persons is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that he conducted award enquiry in the year 1998 and nobody objected to the same, but the fact remains that his predecessor viz., Thiru Ananthakrishnan is stated to have prepared the list about 1= years before the petitioner joining the post and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that he need not verify about the proposal before forwarding the same for the issue of patta because, admittedly, it was the proposal sent by the petitioner that was the basis for the grant of free patta to the beneficiaries, and in my considered view, it is not certainly open to the petitioner to say that the proposal had already been prepared by his predecessor long back and on the other hand, the petitioner should have meticulously verified the proposal before sending the same, which was not done by him and it shows his negligence which came to light later when it was found that most of the beneficiaries were not entitled to get patta. Therefore, the Collector had to cancel the patta. In such a situation, even on merits of the case, in my considered view, there is absolutely nothing in favour of the petitioner. 9. On the admitted facts of the case where the charges framed against the petitioner have been prima facie proved, I am of the considered view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the delay in taking action against the petitioner, is also not acceptable. Even though patta was issued in the year 1998, the authorities could take action against the officials concerned only after the fact as to the correctness of patta came to light in the year 2003 and therefore, the delay cannot be said to be unexplained. After the charge memo was issued and enquiry was conducted and after consulting with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner and in that process, there was delay which cannot be attributable to the respondents and further, the delay cannot be said to be unexplained causing prejudice to the petitioner. After the charge memo was issued and enquiry was conducted and after consulting with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the punishment was imposed on the petitioner and in that process, there was delay which cannot be attributable to the respondents and further, the delay cannot be said to be unexplained causing prejudice to the petitioner. On the other hand, it is clear that while conducting the enquiry, the respondents have conducted it in accordance with law. 10. The law is well settled that this Court in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sitting in appeal, reappreciating the evidence and it is not the decision which can be looked into, but the manner in which the decision has been arrived at that is to be looked into in the writ proceedings. On the facts of the case, it is clear that due opportunity has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has not complained of the same. In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.