THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2597 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records, pertaining to proceedings viz., Rc.No. Z-VI/Estt/62308/2000, dated 11.01.2001, issued by respondent No.1 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal, by holding that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service of respondent No.1 – society as Watchman with all consequential benefits i.e., treating the period from 05.09.2000 till the date of reinstatement, as on duty with full pay and allowances and pay all the arrears of salary to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was working as a Watchman in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential School for Girls, G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda, from January 1999. On 31.08.2000, he was directed by respondent No.2 to take one boarder to her village and handover to her father at Peddapuram Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District. Accordingly, he did the job and returned to the school at 07:00 PM. By the time he returned to the school, there was a farewell party going on, in the school and several new persons, who are unknown to him, were present in the school premises and the dining room of the school was also utilized by them. As he was the only Watchman, he was unable to control the persons attending the party. The party went on till midnight. Prior to the incident, respondent No.3 and her husband were talking about the programme of the farewell party to be conducted on 31.08.2000 in the premises of the school and though the petitioner raised an objection stating that the boarders are all girls, ignoring his objection, the programme was conducted by the Principal i.e., respondent No.3. Since, an untoward incident took place on the night of 31.08.2000, respondent No.3 in order to cover up her mistake has taken a recourse to throw the blame on the petitioner and chose to make a complaint on him, as an after thought and then too on 05.09.2000. On the same night, the Principal gave a complaint to the police stating that an unknown person entered into the Girls Hostel and threatened the students. Police also came to the spot and examined the witnesses. Though the description of the unknown person was given by the students, police could not trace any such person. As respondent No.3 made a complaint against the petitioner on 05.09.2000, he was kept under suspension pending enquiry vide Proc.Rc.No.Z-VI/62308/2000, dated 05.09.2000, issued by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 appointed an Enquiry Officer vide Rc.No.Z- VI/62308/2000, dated 09.11.2000. The said Enquiry Officer issued a Memo bearing Rc.No.ZVI/Estt/62308/2000, dated 15.11.2000, instructing the petitioner and respondent No.3 to attend before her on 23.11.2000. The students were not called to attend the said enquiry on 23.11.2000. Respondent No.3 on her own brought the students to the said enquiry and made them to speak falsehood. None of the students was examined by the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 10 (2) of Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (for short, “the Rules”) were not followed by the Enquiry Officer; no charges were framed; no time was granted to the petitioner to file the written statement and no enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the petitioner prays to set aside the impugned proceeding. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that an Enquiry Officer was appointed; notice was given to all the parties concerned; the statements of the girl students were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and enquiry was conducted. It is stated that respondent No.1 is the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings; framing of charges and appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. During enquiry the petitioner was given opportunity to submit the explanation and after considering the same, the impugned proceedings, dated 11.01.2001, has been issued dismissing the petitioner from service. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 4. Heard both sides. 5. As seen from the proceedings, dated 11.01.2001, it is stated that respondent No.3 informed respondent No.1 that the petitioner entered into the girls’ dormitory on 31.08.2000 at 01:00 AM and threatened the girls. The girl students of the school represented that the petitioner molested one of the girls in an intoxicated state and threatened the other girls. The misbehaviour of the petitioner was unpardonable and unbecoming of an employee of the Society. In the public interest he was rightly suspended. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct regular and detailed enquiry. The case of the petitioner is that on the date of incident the function was arranged by the Principal i.e., respondent No.3, and the outsiders who attended the function must have misbehaved with the girl students and that basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded from the girl students, the charge levelled against him is not proved. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 10 (2) (a) of the Rules has not been followed by respondent No.3 in dismissing the petitioner from service. Regulation 10 (2) (a) of the Rules reads as follows: “In every case where it is proposed to impose, on an employee, any of the penalty’s specified in item (iv), (vi), (vii) or (viii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 the authority competent impose the said penalty shall appoint an enquiry officer who shall be superior in rank to the person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty or shall itself hold an enquiry. In every such case, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegation on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders in the case. He shall be required within a reasonable time to file a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. The person charged may, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that the enquiry officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse such permission, if in his opinion such records are not relevant for the purpose of the enquity or it is against public interest to allow access thereto. On receipt of the statement of defence within specified time or such further time as may have been allowed, an oral enquiry shall be held if such an enquiry is desired by the person charged or is decided upon by the enquiry officer or is directed by the competent authority. At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses who give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the enquiry officer may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call my witness. After the oral enquiry is completed, the person charged shall be entitled to file, if he so desires, a further written statement in his defence. If no oral enquiry is held and the person charged desires to be heard in person a personal hearing shall be given to him. The enquiry officer shall, on completion of the enquiry or the personal hearing of the person charged or both forward the proceedings of the enquiry to the authority competent to impose the penalty unless he is himself such an authority. The proceedings shall contain the charges framed against the person charged along with the grounds therefor, written statement filed in defence, if any, a sufficient record of the evidence adduced during the oral enquiry a memorandum of the points urged by the person charged during the personal hearing, if any, a statement of the findings of the enquiry officer on the different charges and the grounds therefor.” A perusal of the above rule position makes it clear that in case of imposing a major penalty, a regular departmental enquiry has to be conducted; a charge memo has to be issued and communicated to the person to give explanation; witnesses have to be examined by the Enquiry Officer; reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to cross- examine witnesses should be given and after conducting enquiry, report has to be submitted to the disciplinary authority, so as to issue a show- cause notice to the delinquent, calling for the explanation of the proposed punishment. 7. As seen from the record, none of the above procedures, except filing of a report by the Enquiry Officer, is followed. The Enquiry Officer had not followed the procedure contemplated in conducting the enquiry. The final order, dated 11.01.2001, passed by the disciplinary authority in removing the petitioner, would disclose about the submission of enquiry report on 08.12.2000. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that report is not available in the file relating to the detailed enquiry. There is no such report available or brought to the notice of this Court to show that the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry as per Regulation 10 (2) (a) of the Rules and submitted the report. Therefore, the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is totally in deviation with the regulations applicable to the service conditions of employees. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings. However, this order will not preclude respondent No.1 in conducting the regular departmental enquiry in accordance with the regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that the enquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the regulations, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shall take appropriate decision as per regulations with regard to the reinstatement of the petitioner into service or to keep him under suspension, pending disposal of departmental enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 25, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2597 OF 2001 Between: L. Ramulu .....PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2597 OF 2001 November 25, 2010