Judgment The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to call for the records of the second respondent relating to R.C.No.15323/04/E-1, dated 27.04.2007 and quash the paragraph (3) alone of the impugned proceedings relating to the withholding of the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent to make payment of Rs.77,530/- which was with held in the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner served for 26 years in the Treasuries and Accounts Department. He was lastly served as Selection Grade Accountant in the office of the District Treasury, Madurai and was allowed to retire on 31.05.2007 on attaining age of superannuation. 3. Earlier to his retirement on 27.07.2006 charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner is that he had disbursed the entire amount of arrears of pension and D.C.R.G. amount due to one pensioner Thiru.C.Perumal instead of making disbursement limited to 40%, besides wrong fixation of dearness allowance. The sixth pay commission arrears for the retirees were first paid 40% and then 60%. According to the petitioner, the entire arrears of pension and D.C.R.C., were paid by inadvertence and due to pressure of work. 4. The petitioner gave his explanation to the charges. Departmental enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry report, the first respondent in her proceedings in No.RC 29444/2005/Q-3/ dated 16.04.2007 imposed a punishment of Censure. The second respondent also ordered recovery of the excess amount of Rs.2,39,117/- from the pensioner Thiru.C.Perumal. As on 31.07.2010, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.73,480/- alone. Since 70% of the excess amount has already been recovered from the individual Thiru.C.Perumal. 5. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the punishment of Censure and it had become final. 6. In additional to imposing punishment of censure, the first respondent also ordered withholding 50% of the over payment of pension outstanding as on 30.04.2007 from the D.C.R.G., of petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent withheld the sum of Rs.77,530/- from D.C.R.G., of petitioner. 7. Thiru.R.Manimuthu, who was acting as Superintendent in the District Treasury, Madurai was similarly placed like petitioner, filed writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.971 of 2008, aggrieved by withholding of Rs.77,530-50 from his D.C.R.G. This Court set aside the order relating to withholding of D.C.R.G., and directed the respondents to release the amount. 8. 7. Thiru.R.Manimuthu, who was acting as Superintendent in the District Treasury, Madurai was similarly placed like petitioner, filed writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.971 of 2008, aggrieved by withholding of Rs.77,530-50 from his D.C.R.G. This Court set aside the order relating to withholding of D.C.R.G., and directed the respondents to release the amount. 8. According to the petitioner, there were 383 cases of over payment of pension. In those cases, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employees concerned and recovery from pensioners only was ordered. The petitioner had been discriminated for the above reasons. 9. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for quashing the impugned orders and to direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.77,530/- which was with held in the D.C.R.G., of the petitioner within a specified time. 10. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the averments made in the affidavit. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner erroneously calculated the pension payable to one Thiru.C.Perumal and paid entire amount so calculated instead of paying 40% of amount. The Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 11. In the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated, the petitioner deserved deterrent punishment for causing loss to the Government. Due to his retirement on 30.04.2007 lenient view was taken and punishment of censure alone was imposed on the petitioner. It was decided to withhold the sum of Rs.77,530/- being the 50% share of the amount outstanding amount due in respect of excess amount paid to pensioner. Withholding the amount is not a punishment. The said amount is withhold till the excess amount paid to the petitioner recovered in full. The pensioner died on 28.12.2010 and the balance of Rs.1,05,107/- is yet to be recovered from the pensioner. 12. The petitioner and R.Manimuthu are not similarly placed person. For R.Manimuthu, punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect had been imposed. Whereas, punishment of Censure only had been imposed on the petitioner. The respondents have filed Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.302 of 2011 against the order, dated 05.08.2009 made in W.P(MD)No.971 of 2008. The said writ appeal was dismissed and implementation of said order is under consideration. 13. For R.Manimuthu, punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect had been imposed. Whereas, punishment of Censure only had been imposed on the petitioner. The respondents have filed Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.302 of 2011 against the order, dated 05.08.2009 made in W.P(MD)No.971 of 2008. The said writ appeal was dismissed and implementation of said order is under consideration. 13. The pensioner died on 28.12.2010 and a sum of Rs.1,05,107/- is yet to be recovered and if there is no source to make good the Government loss from the pensioner, the petitioner is responsible for Rs.52,553.50 being 50% of the amount of Rs.1,05,107/-. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 15. The petitioner and one R.Manimuthu paid a sum of Rs.2,39,117/- in excess to one of the pensioner Thiru.C.Perumal. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. Based on the enquiry report, punishment of Censure was imposed on the petitioner and the stoppage of increment for one month with cumulative effect was issued on R.Manimuthu. In addition to the punishments imposed, a sum of Rs.77,530/- was ordered to be withheld from D.C.R.G., of petitioner and R.Manimuthu to make good loss to the Government in case, the excess amount paid to pensioners C.Perumal could not be recovered. The said R.Manimuthu filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.971 of 2008 challenging the order withholding a sum of Rs.77,530-50 from his D.C.R.G., This Court by the order, dated 05.08.2009 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order withholding the amount from DCRG of said R.Manimuthu. 16. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondents filed W.A(MD)No.302 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by this Court as admitted by the first respondent in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit the petitioner is that he is similarly place like R.Manimuthu and order withholding a sum of Rs.77,530/- from his DCRG is also liable to be quashed is well funded and is tenable. The contrary contention of the first respondent that the petitioner was imposed a lenient punishment of Censure, while, R.Manimuthu was imposed punishment of stoppage of DCRG with cumulative effect and hence both are not similarly placed is unsustainable and untenable. Punishment and withholding of amounts from DCRG of petitioner and R.Manimuthu are imposed in respect of the same incident. The contrary contention of the first respondent that the petitioner was imposed a lenient punishment of Censure, while, R.Manimuthu was imposed punishment of stoppage of DCRG with cumulative effect and hence both are not similarly placed is unsustainable and untenable. Punishment and withholding of amounts from DCRG of petitioner and R.Manimuthu are imposed in respect of the same incident. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of order of this Court made in W.P.No.971 of 2008 and W.A.(MD)No.302 of 2011. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 27.04.2007 withholding a sum of Rs.77,530 from DCRG is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the said amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.