Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment, dated 12.7.2007 issued vide G.O. (D) No.379, dated 12.7.2007. 2. The petitioner while working as Block Development Officer, attained the age of superannuation, but was not allowed to retire and placed under suspension, as departmental enquiry was pending against him. 3. The first charge against the petitioner was that he as Additional Block Development Officer, Nallur Panchayat Union was responsible for causing a loss of Rs.2,31,025/-(Rupees two lakhs thirty one thousand and twenty five only) to JVVT funds by tampering with the cheques on account of his inefficient handling of financial transaction as detailed in Annexure 1 to charge memo. 4. In the enquiry held by the enquiry officer, finding recorded was, that six cheques were tampered with by the NREP Accountant of the Nallur Panchayat for higher amounts which resulted in loss of Rs.2,31,025/-(Rupees two lakhs thirty one thousand and twenty five only). The petitioner was held guilty of negligence in not acting prudently by handing over the cheques to the same person who wrote it, which facilitated the tampering of the cheques. The enquiry officer by placing reliance on the Article 5 of the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, held the petitioner guilty of this charge. 5. Charge No.2 against the petitioner was that as Additional Block Development Officer, Nallur Panchayat Union, he was responsible for causing a loss of Rs.2,085/- (Rupees two thousand and eighty five only) to JVVT funds, because of his lack of supervision on the maintenance of accounts register. This charge was also held to be proved against the petitioner. 6. Charge No.3 against the petitioner was that as Additional Block Development Officer, Nallur Panchayat Union, he failed to adopt the norms prescribed for the sanction of advances for works and was in the habit of indiscriminate sanction of advances. This charge was held to be not proved. 7. The 4th Charge against the petitioner was that as Additional Block Development Officer, Nallur Panchayat Union has failed to physically verify the Engineering stock such as Cement, Steel, Bitumen, etc. thereby allowing the Union Engineer for improper maintenance of the stock register. This charge was also held to be not proved. 8. 7. The 4th Charge against the petitioner was that as Additional Block Development Officer, Nallur Panchayat Union has failed to physically verify the Engineering stock such as Cement, Steel, Bitumen, etc. thereby allowing the Union Engineer for improper maintenance of the stock register. This charge was also held to be not proved. 8. The competent authority on the receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and imposed punishment to cut pension along with penalty of Rs.65,965/- (Rupees sixty five thousand nine hundred and sixty five only). 9. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice by taking a stand that the Accountant who admittedly, committed forgery and misappropriated the amount which resulted in loss of Rs.2,31,025/- (Rupees two lakh thirty one thousand and twenty five only) and person responsible for loss of Rs.2,085/-(Rupees two thousand eighty five only) i.e. Extension Officer who was responsible for entrusting duty to maintain the petty cash book had failed to bring to the notice of the petitioner the tampering of cheques. 10. The petitioner was entrusted with various field works, therefore, could not suspect the conduct of the Accountant, who admitted his guilt and accused the previous Manager of having received a share in the appropriated amount. The petitioner was not responsible for the loss of Rs.2,31,025/-(Rupees two lakhs thirty one thousand and twenty five only). 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Accountant and the Clerk were responsible for maintenance of register, though charged for the same misconduct, were exonerated of the charges. This fact has not been disputed in the counter filed by the respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside being violating Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, as other employees charged with same charges and being primarily responsible for the misconduct were exonerated of the charges, therefore, charge of negligence in supervision of those employees cannot stand. Otherwise also, persons charged with same misconduct cannot be discriminated. 13. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was held guilty of charges by the enquiry officer and cannot take any benefit of fact that the other employees charged with same charges were exonerated in view of their admission of the misconduct. 14. 13. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was held guilty of charges by the enquiry officer and cannot take any benefit of fact that the other employees charged with same charges were exonerated in view of their admission of the misconduct. 14. On consideration, I find that the defence of the learned Additional Govt. Pleader cannot be accepted. The petitioner was held guilty of negligence in supervision. In absence of holding person responsible guilty of charges, the charges framed against the supervising officer cannot be sustained. 15. It was not open to the respondents to exonerate the person responsible for misconduct and impose punishment only against the Supervisor for his negligence in supervision. 16. Learned counsels for the petitioner therefore right in contending that the impugned order cannot be sustained being, hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 17. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the recovery made from the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefit of settlement of retiral benefits.M.P.No.1 of 2008 is allowed. M.P.No.2 of 2008 is dismissed. No costs.