ORDER

With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner herein, while serving as a Deputy Block Development Officer (Panchayats), was levelled with charges through a charge memo dated 22.04.2013 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, to the effect that he along with co-delinquents had failed to carry out the duties and responsibilities entrusted to them, resulting in a wasteful expenditure to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs supplying multiple works and bringing them below Rs.1 lakh to avoid technical sanction, excess expenditure in maintenance and water supply, double payments for road works and the irregularity in payment of the executive road works. Based on the levelled charges, the petitioner was subjected to a domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report dated 27.11.2013, holding all the charges as proved. The petitioner had given his further explanation on 11.12.2013 on the report of the Enquiry Officer. However, the explanation was kept pending for more than 3 years and ultimately, on 31.03.2016, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect. Challenging the punishment, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Along with the petitioner, 3 other officials from the Panchayat Administration, namely, Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Assistant Engineer (Rural Development) and Union Overseer, were also charged under Rule 17(b) for identical lapses. While the petitioner, the Assistant Engineer and the Union Overseer were imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of 2 years "with" cumulative effect, the Block Development Officer was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of 2 years "without" cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that the charges against the Block Development Officer and the petitioner and other co-delinquents were one and the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised two grounds. Firstly, she would submit that though the charges against the Block Development Officer and the petitioner herein, who was a Deputy Block Development Officer, were one and the same, the disciplinary authority had chosen to impose a lesser punishment for the Block Development Officer, which is an act of discrimination. In support of such a claim, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and others Vs. S.Bright Solomon and another passed in W.A.(MD) Nos.1218 and 1219 of 2015, dated 17.12..2019, as well as a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2008 (4) L.L.N. 113. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the enquiry report was made on 27.11.2013 and the petitioner had submitted his further explanation on 11.12.2013 itself, the impugned order was passed on

31.03.2016, after an inordinate delay. In the mean time, the panel for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer was drawn on 01.03.2016 and quoting the pendency of the domestic enquiry, the petitioner's name was not considered for promotion, which has caused serious prejudice to him. On this ground also, the learned counsel sought for quashing of the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that though the charges against the petitioner and the Block Development Officer are one and the same, the responsibility and duty of the Deputy Block Development Officer is higher and in view of this, he was imposed with a higher punishment. On the ground of delay, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that after the enquiry report was passed and t