JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in calling for the records pertaining to the First Respondent in Reference No. 45214/Ser.2(1)/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009 and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for issuance of an order by this Court, directing the Respondents to pay the retirement benefits to him within a stipulated period. 2. The Germane Facts of the Writ Petition: "a) According to the Petitioner, he joined as Junior Assistant through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1972 and was allotted to Education Department. Subsequently, he was transferred to Revenue Department during the year 1973. After serving for four years, he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1977 in Dharmapuri District. Later, in the year 1984, he got promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. In the year 2003, he was promoted to the post of Tahsildar. Due to bifurcation of Dharmapuri District, he opted to join in Krishnagiri District. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector and appointed as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on 16.03.2006. After serving as Revenue Divisional Officer in Ariyalur District, he got transferred to Vellore District and served as P.A.(General) to the District Collector. He reached superannuation on 28.02.2009. b) He was served with a charge memo by the First Respondent through Letter No. 45214/Ser.2(1)/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules for certain alleged irregularities said to have been committed by him as a member of the High Level Committee constituted by the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, which was formed on 17.01.2006. The said charge memo was served on him on 27.02.2009 through the Third Respondent. c) The statement of charges dated 25.02.2009 framed against the Petitioner are as follows:- Charge-1: That while you were working as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Dharmapuri and one of the member of High Level Committee Officials you have conducted an enquiry in an apathetical manner regard to the registration of 23 registrants belong to the other district and submitted imperfect suggestions through note files which led for the wrong appointment of 15 job seekers for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Dharmapuri District. Thereby you have violated the directions of the District Collector, Dharmapuri District and defeated the object and purpose of forming of the High Level Committee and therefore, you have committed official misconduct and negligent while discharging your official duties. Charge-2: Thus you have lacked in absolute integrity and devotion to duty and have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated the provisions laid down under Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973. d) The stand of the Petitioner is that he was not at all a member of the High Level Committee when the said High Level Committee constituted by the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 17.01.2006, which took a decision for appointment of 15 job seekers to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. In fact, the High Level Committee met on 21.02.2006 and deliberations took place among the members of the Committee and finally, suggested to issue appointment orders by taking formal approval from the District Collector, Dharmapuri. Thereupon, a file note was put up by the then Committee to the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 02.03.2006 and ultimately, the Collector made remarks to defer till the General Election is concluded. e) He joined as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on promotion on 16.03.2006. By virtue of his position as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, he became a member of the High Level Committee thereafter. As such, it is the strong stand of the Petitioner that he cannot be held responsible as one of the members of the High Level Committee to have given wrong appointments to 15 job seekers to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in Dharmapuri District. Therefore, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner before this Court that it is not known on what basis, the First Respondent/Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9, has issued the impugned charge memo dated 25.02.2009 and that too, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Further, the Petitioner became a member of the High Level Committee only on 16.03.2006 along with some other officials in the Revenue Department as well as in the Education Department and Director of Employment Department. As such, the decision of the High Level Committee is a collective one. It cannot be termed as a decision rendered by an individual. Further, the Petitioner became a member of the High Level Committee only on 16.03.2006 along with some other officials in the Revenue Department as well as in the Education Department and Director of Employment Department. As such, the decision of the High Level Committee is a collective one. It cannot be termed as a decision rendered by an individual. Moreover, the Committee consists of the following members: 1. District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, Chairman. 2. Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, Secretary. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Member. 4. District Backward Class & Minority Welfare Officer, Dharmapuri, Member. 5. District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri, Member. f) Continuing further, it is the case of the Petitioner that the main object of the High Level Committee is to scrutinise the application of job seekers from Dharmapuri District through employment exchange and finally take a decision with regard to appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. In the instant case, the said High Level Committee received 23 job seekers' list and recommended 15 job seekers for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Indeed, the decision was forwarded to the Collector, Dharmapuri District on 02.03.2006. While accepting the appointment of 15 job seekers for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, the District Collector, Dharmapuri, had deferred the matter in view of the General Election, which ultimately concluded on 20.05.2006. Later, the appointment orders were issued to the said candidates and hence, no fresh decision was taken subsequent to the Petitioner assuming the role of a member of the High Level Committee by virtue of his posting as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on 16.03.2006. g) The Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that one S. Natarajan, District Revenue Officer, who served as Chairman and A.Karuppusamy, Revenue Divisional Officer were members of the High Level Committee. They were also served with charge memos under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Finally, the Chief Secretary to the State Government exonerated both of them from the disciplinary proceedings through Government Letter dated 25.11.2009 vide Letter No. 3013/2008-6 Public (Special A) Department and vide Letter No. 3013/2006-7 Public (Special A) Department. h) The First Respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer namely, Tmt. Maheswari Ravikumar on 02.02.2010, that too, after a lapse of 11 months. The Petitioner took part in the enquiry proceedings. h) The First Respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer namely, Tmt. Maheswari Ravikumar on 02.02.2010, that too, after a lapse of 11 months. The Petitioner took part in the enquiry proceedings. Even after the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings on 23.09.2010, no enquiry report was sent to the Government. Subsequently, the First Respondent/Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, appointed another Inquiry Officer, namely, S. Ganesh on 28.01.2011, who was transferred later and the disciplinary proceedings were put in a cold storage without any progress even after several years have rolled by. The Petitioner was permitted to retire on 28.02.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation without prejudice to the pending disciplinary case against him. There is no specific order retaining him in service, which is visualized under the Fundamental Rules. As a matter of fact, the ingredients of FR 56(1)(c) have not been complied with. As such, the charge memo issued to him dated 25.02.2009 is an illegal one." 3. The substance of the stand of the Petitioner is that the charge memo dated 25.02.2009 is to be set aside because of the reason that he was permitted to retire without following the ingredients of Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. Till date, he has not been paid the balance amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, commutation of pension. Further, when decision was taken to exonerate the Chairman as well as another member of the High Level Committee from the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the same set of charges and when the Petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of other two persons mentioned herein, not dropping the charges framed against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules is an arbitrary and discriminatory one in the eye of law, which cannot be sustained. 4. Respondents' Submissions: "Per contra, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents submits that common disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner (Deputy Collector) and one Tmt. D. Indirani, Superintendent, Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Dharmapuri, was ordered by the Government in G.O.(2D) No. 84 Revenue Ser2(1) Department dated 25.02.2009 and subsequently, the Petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 28.02.2009 A.N. (vide G.O. (2D) No. 93 Revenue Ser2(1) Department dated 27.02.2009) without prejudice to the disciplinary case pending against him." 5. Further, in G.O.(D) No.33 Revenue [Ser.2(1)] Department dated 02.02.2010, the Government appointed Tmt. Further, in G.O.(D) No.33 Revenue [Ser.2(1)] Department dated 02.02.2010, the Government appointed Tmt. Maheshwari Ravikumar, District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner and Tmt. Indirani, Superintendent, Officer of the District Elementary Education, Dharmapuri was directed to conduct inquiry by following the procedure laid down in Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and sent the report within two months. 6. It comes to be known that Tmt. Maheswari Ravikumar, District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri was appointed as inquiry officer who was subsequently transferred and therefore, the Government G.O.(D) No.228 Revenue [Ser.2(1)] Department dated 28.07.2011 appointed Mr.S.Ganesh, District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri as the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner and Tmt.Indirani, Superintendent, Officer of the District Elementary Officer, Dharmapuri. 7. The Gist of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court: "i) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (11) SCC [Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prahash Chandra Mirdha] at page 565 and 566 it is held as follows:- "The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Ordinarily, a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. ii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 (2) SCC [Union of India and another Vs. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. ii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 (2) SCC [Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana] at page 28 and at Special page 29, it is observed and laid down as follows: "A writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. Albeit, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal." 8. DISCUSSIONS: "It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector and posted as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on 16.03.2006. However, it comes to be known that he was served with a charge memo for purported irregularities said to have been committed as a member of the High Level Committee under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. At this stage, it cannot be gainsaid that along with the Petitioner, one S. Natarajan, District Revenue Officer (Chairman of the Committee) as well as A. Karuppusamy, Revenue Divisional Officer, were also served with charge memos under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules in respect of the same set of charges and they were exonerated through Government Letter dated 25.11.2009 vide Letter No. 3013/2008-6 Public (Spl.A) Department and vide Letter No. 3013/2006-7 Public (Special.A) Department. The Petitioner attained superannuation on 28.02.2009 F.N. and he was permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary case pending against him." 9. In this connection, this Court very relevantly points out that on 23.09.2010 the Petitioner has given a statement (as seen from page 29, xerox copy of the typed-set of papers) wherein among other things it is mentioned that he has furnished the detailed explanation on 09.07.2009. In this connection, this Court very relevantly points out that on 23.09.2010 the Petitioner has given a statement (as seen from page 29, xerox copy of the typed-set of papers) wherein among other things it is mentioned that he has furnished the detailed explanation on 09.07.2009. Also, he has stated that he has not participated in any of the High Level Committee meetings that has taken place and even before he joined the post of Dharmapuri District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, the High Level Committee has met and taken the decision and sent the notes to the District Collector and based on the said notes, the District Collector has asked for certain clarification and after the High Level Committee members giving their explanation, the District Collector has stopped issuance of Secondary Grade Teachers' appointment order till 20.05.2006 based on Election Conduct Rules. 10. One cannot loose sight of a very vital fact as per Rule 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules [substituted in G.O.(Ms) No.66 (P & AR) (Per.N) Department dated 10.03.1994, the State Government after deciding upon the choice of proceedings where under Sub Rule (a) or Sub Rule (b) of Rule 17 may direct the head of the department concerned to institute disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) or 17(b) as the case may be against a member of state services and remit the case for passing final orders. 11. That apart, it is useful for this Court to make a significant reference to Circular No.14353/Per.N/93-1, dated 11.03.1993 (issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu) wherein in paragraph 6 it is mentioned as follows: "6. A rough and ready method to determine whether charges are to be framed under rule 17(b) or show cause notice is to be issued under rule 17(a) would be as follows: TEST PROCEDURE a) Is a major penalty warranted Frame Charges under rule 17(b). Based on the gravity of the allegations? If yes. b) In all other cases Proceed under Rule 7(a)." Furthermore, in the said letter in Annexure-II, certain guidelines have been issued in regard to issuance of show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of TNCS (D & A) Rules. As a matter of fact, Annexure-III speaks of common guidelines to be followed in framing charges and show cause notice under Rule 17(a). 12. As a matter of fact, Annexure-III speaks of common guidelines to be followed in framing charges and show cause notice under Rule 17(a). 12. A perusal of contents of Letter No. 3013/Spl.A/2008-2, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai, dated 30.07.2009 addressed to Thiru S. Natarajan, Special District Revenue Officer (LA-NH), Tirunelveli, shows that he was required to submit his explanation in regard to certain lapses committed by him pertaining to wrong appointment of 15 job seekers for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in Dharmapuri District. Likewise, by Letter No. 3013/Spl.A/2008-3, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai, dated 30.07.2009, Thiru A. Karuppasamy, District Revenue Officer/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai, was also required to submit his explanation in respect of wrong appointment of 15 job seekers for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in Dharmapuri District. Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, through Letter No. 45214/Ser2(1)/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009, he was issued with a charge memo containing two charges and further, he was directed to submit within 15 days of receipt of the said letter, a written statement of his defence. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner is charged under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The allegation levelled against the Petitioner is that he has violated the provisions laid down under Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. In fact, Annexure I, Statement of charges, refers to charge Nos. 1 and 2 levelled against the Petitioner in detail. 13. One cannot brush aside an important fact that the Government has examined the explanation of Thiru S. Natarajan, Special District Revenue Officer (LA-NH), Tirunelveli and through Letter No. 3013/2008-6, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 dated 25.11.2009, the Government has informed that it has decided to accept his explanation and to drop further action in the matter. Likewise, in respect of Thiru A. Karuppasamy, District Revenue Officer/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai, the Government has decided to accept his explanation and to drop further action in the matter and accordingly, the said individual was informed through Letter No. 3013/2008-7, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 dated 25.11.2009. Likewise, in respect of Thiru A. Karuppasamy, District Revenue Officer/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai, the Government has decided to accept his explanation and to drop further action in the matter and accordingly, the said individual was informed through Letter No. 3013/2008-7, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 dated 25.11.2009. As already stated, in respect of Thiru S. Natarajan, Special District Revenue Officer (LA-NH), Tirunelveli and Thiru A. Karuppasamy, District Revenue Officer/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai, show cause notices were issued under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. However, in respect of the very same set of charges against the Petitioner, he has been discriminated and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. When the Government has decided to drop further action in respect of the show cause notices issued to Thiru S. Natarajan, Special District Revenue Officer (LA-NH), Tirunelveli and Thiru A. Karuppasamy, District Revenue Officer/Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai, after accepting their explanations, through Letter Nos. 3013/2008-6 & 3013/2008-7, Public (Special. A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 dated 25.11.2009 respectively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same yardstick/measure has to be adopted in the case of the Petitioner also. However, such a yardstick/measure has not been resorted to and obviously, the Petitioner has been discriminated/singled out. Furthermore, when the Petitioner assumed/joined as District Backward Classes Welfare Officer on promotion only on 16.03.2006, it is not known as to how he was served with a charge memo dated 25.02.2009 for the purported irregularities said to have been committed by him as a member of the High Level Committee under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. In this connection, it is to be remembered that the High Level Committee met and deliberated on 21.02.2006 with regard to the subject matter in issue. 14. In this connection, it is to be remembered that the High Level Committee met and deliberated on 21.02.2006 with regard to the subject matter in issue. 14. Suffice it for this Court to point out that in an Administrative/Executive action of the State, when the Petitioner, Thiru S. Natarajan, formerly District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri and Thiru A. Karuppasamy, formerly Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, were similarly situated and in respect of Thiru S. Natarajan and Thiru S. Karuppasamy, only Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was resorted to and also that, when the Government ultimately decided to drop further action in the matter, after accepting their explanations, this Court comes to the irresistible and inevitable conclusion that the Petitioner cannot be singled out/discriminated and the doctrine of equality is applicable to the case of the Petitioner also, as in the case of Thiru S. Natarajan and Thiru A. Karuppasamy. As a matter of fact, the concept of equality is embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It will apply to the Petitioner, in the instant case, since he has shown before this Court that he has been discriminated against, in the matter of dropping of further action in respect of the subject matter in issue and further, even in regard to the departmental action taken against him, he was proceeded under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Besides, the allegations levelled against the said two individuals, namely, Thiru S. Natarajan and Thiru A. Karuppasamy, referred to supra, were finally dropped. In short, this Court opines that 'Equal is to be treated equally even in the matter of Executive and Administrative action'. In the instant case, such an equal treatment has not been meted out to the Petitioner. At the risk of repetition, this Court points out that the Petitioner has been singled out/discriminated very patently. Further admittedly, as on date no final orders have been passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner by the concerned authority. 15. It is to be borne in mind that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a genus in the sense that the clauses on lawful or protective discrimination and public employment as envisages in Articles 15 and 16 respectively provided for exceptions to that equity clause of Article 14. 15. It is to be borne in mind that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a genus in the sense that the clauses on lawful or protective discrimination and public employment as envisages in Articles 15 and 16 respectively provided for exceptions to that equity clause of Article 14. Hence, in appropriate cases, all the three Articles are to be read together as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others Vs. Union of India and others [ 2003 (11) SCC 146 ]. Also that the concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India will extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in respect of exercise of his right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equal is to be treated equally in the matter of Executive or an Administrative action, as opined by this Court. 16. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the fact that the guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept. It cannot be enforced in a negative manner. The concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. 17. Inasmuch as the Petitioner/delinquent has been singled out/discriminated very patently, further this Court taking note of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner is pending as on date (till date admittedly, no final orders have been passed in the matter in issue) and further, based on the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion, this Court is left with no other option but to quash the charge memo dated 25.02.2009 issued to the Petitioner since it will serve no purpose (and in reality, its a futile one) and because of the reason that the same set of charges levelled against one Thiru S. Natarajan and Thiru A. Karuppasamy, referred to supra were exonerated and further action was dropped in the matter. Viewed in that perspective, this Court quashes the charge memo dated 25.02.2009 to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 18. Conclusion: In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the charge memo issued by the First Respondent vide No. 45214/Ser2[1]/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009 to the Petitioner is hereby quashed. Viewed in that perspective, this Court quashes the charge memo dated 25.02.2009 to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 18. Conclusion: In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the charge memo issued by the First Respondent vide No. 45214/Ser2[1]/2008-4 dated 25.02.2009 to the Petitioner is hereby quashed. Further, the Respondents are directed to settle/disburse the retirement benefits to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.