Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in G.O. (4d) No.1 dated 23.01.2006 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with effect from the date of dismissal with all monetary and service benefits and grant all the retirement benefits to the petitioner as if he has reached age of superannuation, with interest at 18% p.a. on such amount and costs. 3. Mr. R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was a Stock Verification Officer in the Clerical cadre under District Library Officer one Sachidanandan. As per the case of the respondents, the said Sachidanandan had demanded bribe for a sum of Rs.3,000/-for appointment of Sweeper in the Library and after negotiation he was ready to accept Rs.2,000/-for the said appointment and he used the petitioner as mediator to receive the said amount. A departmental enquiry was conducted and as per the findings of the enquiry officer, charges levelled against the said Sachidanandan, District Library Officer and the petitioner herein were proved. However, subsequently as per G.O. (1D) No.130, School Education Department dated 26.07.2002, the said Sachidanandan was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. However, the respondents held that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved and accordingly imposed punishment whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. Mr.R.Singaravelan submitted that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision Man Singh vs State of Haryana and others reported in(2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 331. 4. Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid factum that the then District Library Officer, Sachidanandan was exonerated though as per the charges levelled against the petitioner, he received the amount Rs.2,000/-only for Sachidanandan, erstwhile District Library Officer, who was the appointing authority of the post Sweeper. 5. 4. Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid factum that the then District Library Officer, Sachidanandan was exonerated though as per the charges levelled against the petitioner, he received the amount Rs.2,000/-only for Sachidanandan, erstwhile District Library Officer, who was the appointing authority of the post Sweeper. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner having exonerated the charges levelled against Sachidanandan, the then District Library Officer, the respondents could not maintain the charges only as against the petitioner, as it was alleged that he had received the money only for Sachidanandan. It is an admitted fact that the appointing authority for the post of Sweeper is only the District Library Officer and not the petitioner herein. The petitioner being a subordinate official as Stock Verification Officer had no authority to appoint any Sweeper which is not in dispute. 6. On the aforesaid circumstances, independently the petitioner could not have received any amount, as per the charges levelled against the petitioner and other person Sachidanandan. The major delinquency offence alleged is against the District Library Officer who was the appointing authority. On the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner argued that after exonerating the charges levelled against the District Library Officer, Sachidanandan, the respondents cannot maintain the charge only against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had denied all the charges levelled against him. Hence based on the findings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner had received Rs.2,000/- on behalf of Sachidanandan, after exonerating the Principal Delinquent Official, the respondents hold that the charges levelled against the petitioner herein was proved and impose punishment of dismissal from service. In the decision referred above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 20 held as follows: "20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of state action. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of state action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a Governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of "fair play" and reasonableness." 7. In the instant case, Sachidanandan who was the District Library Officer allegedly demanded bribe for appointment of sweeper for which he used one of his subordinate, the petitioner herein. Having exonerated the charges levelled against Sachidanandan, District Library Officer, it is not just and fair on the part of the respondents to hold that the petitioner had obtained bribe for appointment of Sweeper by giving a go-bye to the original charge, since the petitioner had no authority to appoint a sweeper or any other staff in the library. On the aforesaid circumstances, I am of a view that the writ petition has to be allowed to meet the ends of justice, on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner has no legs to stand after exonerating the Principal delinquent official, who was the District Library Officer. 8. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order passed in GO (4d) No.1 dated 23.01.2006 is set aside. However, on the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be re-instated in service or to seek back wages, however the petitioner shall have continuity of service from the period of suspension till the date of superannuation for the purpose of getting pension and other (monetary) retirement benefits as per law, which shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently connected M.P. is closed. No order as to costs.