THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.773 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Cashier in the Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. In the year 2003, he was working in the Office at Repalle. On 14.09.2000, about Rs.14,00,000/- was collected by that Office. On the ground that the cash chest of the branch became full, the petitioner was handed over a sum of Rs.3,51,500/- for custody in the steel almirah till the next date for remittance in the Bank. However, on the next day, the amount kept in the almirah was found missing. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The latter submitted a report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. Taking the report of the Enquiry Officer into account, respondent No.2 passed an order, dated 10.04.2003, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred against it was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is defective and contrary to law. He contends that the Enquiry Officer was appointed even before the charge sheet was issued. He further submits that during the course of domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has played the role of Presenting Officer, by cross-examining every witness. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner left both the keys of the steel almirah in the Office itself and though a group of three officials were entrusted with the cash, the petitioner alone was proceeded against. Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had resorted to acts of misappropriation of huge amounts of the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner did not raise any objection at any stage and it is not open to him to challenge the proceedings, once the punishment is imposed. He also submits that the petitioner has since retired from service and no useful purpose would be served in case the impugned order is set aside. The allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. The disciplinary authority was entitled to frame charges and proceed against the petitioner. It is only when the explanation offered by a charged employee is not necessary that an occasion would arise for appointment of an Enquiry Officer. The charges are to be framed by the disciplinary authority alone, unless the Service Regulations provide for it. In the instant case, respondent No.2 has straightaway appointed the Enquiry Officer that too, empowering him to frame the charges. For all practical purposes, he has abdicated his power to frame charges and conferred them, upon the Enquiry Officer. This is impermissible in law. On an earlier occasion, this Court held that an Enquiry Officer cannot by himself frame charges, unless he is specifically conferred with such power under the relevant Service Regulations. The Service Regulations of the respondents do not permit of such a course. Further, a perusal of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer discloses that every witness that was examined in the proceedings was cross-examined by him. It is only the delinquent employee or the Presenting Officer that is entitled to cross- examine the witnesses. The question of an Enquiry Officer cross- examining the witnesses does not arise. The two lapses pointed above are very serious in nature, and would vitiate the order of removal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to respondent No.2 to issue charge sheet by himself, and proceed to appoint an Enquiry Officer, in case the explanation offered by the petitioner is not found satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer so appointed shall not cross- examine any witnesses, but can seek clarification, if any. Since the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, there is no necessity for the respondents, to reinstate him. The proceedings shall be concluded within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they are not concluded within that time, the respondents shall be under obligation to extend the retirement benefits to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 23.12.2010. kdl