JUDGMENT : The appellant herein aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus W.P(MD)No.2554 of 2015 dated 02.09.2021, had preferred this intra court Writ Appeal. 2.The appellant P.Guruva Reddiar, while serving as Executive Engineer in Rural Water Supply Division, Sivagagai, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for manipulating the records to make excess payment to the supplier of pump-sets and thereby cause pecuniary loss to the department. 3.The Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated against this appellant and two others, on 14.12.2009. The Enquiry Officer / The Superintending Engineer TWAD, Sewerage Circle, Madurai, after enquiry, held that the charges framed against other two proved, but against this appellant ‘not proved’. However, Disciplinary Authority/ the Managing Director, TWAD Board, differed with the enquiry officer report and did not agree with the findings and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer exonerating this appellant from all charges. Hence, after causing notice of hearing to the appellant and not satisfied with his explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service vide proceedings dated 28.05.2010. 4.Aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred the statutory appeal against the order of dismissal, before the Chairman TWAD, who is the Appellant Authority, on 26.06.2010. His appeal was not taken up for consideration, hence the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.12944 of 2010 for mandamus to dispose his appeal within reasonable time. In the meanwhile, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority gave fresh notice dated 03.10.2011 and called the appellant for enquiry. Thereafter, the order of dismissal passed on 28.10.2011. 5.Challenging the dismissal order dated 28.05.2010 by the Disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the appellate Authority vide order dated 28.10.2011, the appellant preferred WP(MD)No.13173 of 2011. This writ petition came to be allowed on 01.07.2014, holding that the order of the appellate authority is a non speaking order. Without applying the mind, the order in appeal passed simply reproducing the order of the disciplinary authority order. The Learned Judge remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority(First Respondent) to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6.In the above said circumstances, the first respondent had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and had passed an order on 01.10.2014 confirming the order of dismissal from service. This order is the subject matter of W.P(MD)No.2554 of 2015. 6.In the above said circumstances, the first respondent had given an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and had passed an order on 01.10.2014 confirming the order of dismissal from service. This order is the subject matter of W.P(MD)No.2554 of 2015. 7.In this writ petition, the appellant contended that, the order of dismissal confirmed by the appellate authority is without assigning any reason for differing ‘not guilty’ finding of the enquiry officer. The charges are very trivial and the deliration can be attributed only to his subordinates and not to the appellant. When his subordinates namely N.R.Kannan, the Assistant Engineer and Mr. Ramakrishnan, Assistant Executive Engineer were given lesser punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect, the appellant alone given the major punishment of dismissal, at the fag end of his service. Which is discriminatory and bristles with disparity. The enquiry officer after holding that even if any excess amount paid to the supplier that can be recovered from the contractor in the pending bills and there will not be any pecuniary loss to the Board. No reasoning given by the Disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reject this explanation. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed for being non speaking. 8.The learned single Judge, after considering the above submission and the gravity of charges, has held that, when it is enough for the TWAD Board to acquire 15 metres head pumpset and the approval was only to purchase 15 metres head pumpsets, the delinquent had taken his own decision to accept the supply of 20 metres head pumpsets without approval from the competent authority. Further, for 20 metres head pumpsets which the TWAD Board neither require, price for 40 metres head pumpets been paid to the supplier because of the deliration and lack of devotion to duty by the appellant herein. Considering the duty and responsibility of the appellant as Executive Engineer and other two delinquents, who were Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, the Learned Judge in the impugned order has observed as below:- “The duty and responsibility of the petitioner is different from others against whom charges are levelled. The petitioner has approved the bill for the Department, which was neither required nor supplied at all to the Board. Thereby, the Board had to pay heavy price. The petitioner has approved the bill for the Department, which was neither required nor supplied at all to the Board. Thereby, the Board had to pay heavy price. After making payment, the petitioner pleads that he has not committed any misconduct as there is no loss. The responsibility of the petitioner as Executive Engineer is to supervise and monitor every essentials. In this case, due to the irresponsible conduct and duty of the petitioner, excess money was paid to the contractor. Though there is possibility of adjusting this excess payment in future, that will not mitigate the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner as a responsible officer of the Board. The disciplinary proceedings though initiated against the petitioner and others on the same set of allegations the responsibility attached with charges against the delinquents are slightly different.” 9.The learned counsel for the appellant passionately argued that, the appellant who had put up unblemished service of about 34 years been isolated and victimised by dismissing him three days prior to his superannuation. The finding of the enquiry officer, who had given a clean chit to the appellant not at all taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. In the order of dismissal and in the order in appeal, the reason for differing the enquiry officer view ought to have been disclosed. The failure to give reason not been considered by the learned Judge. There cannot be two different punishment for the same set of charges. While so, even if the charges are found to be proved, the punishment imposed on the co-delinquents ought to have been imposed on the appellant also and not in excess and disproportionate to the delinquency. 10.The learned Additional Advocate General, in response to the above argument submitted that the charges are two fold, first the Board required only 15 metres head pumpsets and the approval was only for the purchase of 15 metres head pumpsets. Whereas, the appellant on his own without need and approval had purchased pump sets with 20 metres head. Second, for the supply of 20 metres head pumpsets, he approved payment for the price of 40 metres head pumpsets. Thus, for the aggregate value of Rs.8,46,000/- payable to the supplier, a sum of Rs.15,07,500/- paid being 75 % of the the bill value. The 25 % balance payable is only Rs.5,02,500/-. Second, for the supply of 20 metres head pumpsets, he approved payment for the price of 40 metres head pumpsets. Thus, for the aggregate value of Rs.8,46,000/- payable to the supplier, a sum of Rs.15,07,500/- paid being 75 % of the the bill value. The 25 % balance payable is only Rs.5,02,500/-. Therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer that the excess payment could be recovered from the supplier in future is not a finding on merit. 11.The duties and responsibilities as laid in the PWD Code, Appendix 2, the Executive Engineer is the person responsible for giving complete and final shape to all proposals coming up from the field. He is responsible for super check and inspection of works. The Executive Engineer is the kingpin of the department playing a pivotal role in the functioning of the Board. He is all in all in the field of construction, responsible for the execution and management of all works in the Division. While so, in total disregard to his the appellant had committed gross misconduct causing financial loss to the Board. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authorities held that the appellant is to be dismissed from service. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts had passed a detailed order in Writ petition which need to be confirmed. 12.The substance of charges for which the appellant found guilty and dismissed in short is that, he while serving as Executive Engineer failed to take effective steps to submit the proposal for approval of rates for the pumpsets, actually supplied for the revised duty conditions (lesser duty). To the competent authority and released the payment as per the agreement rate which is for the higher duty pumpsets. He wantonly ignored the certificate furnished by the Assistant Engineer and the entries in the M.Book to make higher payment. His act of misconduct established from the proven fact that he after making entry of receipt for lesser duty of pumpsets in the M.Book, contrarily made entry in the CBPB for higher duty pumpsets and thereby enabled the supplier / contractor to get higher rate of payment of Rs.15,07,500/- (75% of the total value) which is over and above of the actual aggregate value of Rs.6,47,500/-. 13.For all these false entries, the only explanation from the appellant is that he had signed the registers prepared by his subordinates. 13.For all these false entries, the only explanation from the appellant is that he had signed the registers prepared by his subordinates. Further explanation and justification is that the excess amount paid can be recovered from pending bills payable to the supplier. Hence, there is no loss for the TWAD Board. 14.From Annexure 2 of the TWAD Code, we find that the role of the Executive Engineer is pivotal right from preparing proposal to its successful execution. Acceptance of pumpsets of unapproved specification or the payment for a higher duty pumpsets when the supply was lesser duty are not trivial violation as contended by the appellant. After making payment knowingly by manipulating the records, he has taken a untenable plea that the excess amount can be recovered from the contractor from the future bills. 15.The co- delinquents, who are his subordinates, were imposed lesser punishment, since their role in the misconduct is not similar to that of the appellant. Their duties and the responsibilities mentioned in the PWD Code Annexure 2 is not as high as that of the appellant, who was serving as Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time and being the Head of the Division. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim parity with his subordinates who had acted on the dictate of the appellant. 16.In view of the facts discussed above, we find no merits in this appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.