THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4458 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Manager of the Society for Employment and Training, calling in question the notice issued to him on 01.01.2011 by the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Society for Training, Employment and Promotion, calling for his explanation on the report said to have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer-cum-Additional Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. I do not wish to enter into the controversy in detail, in view of the order proposed to be passed now. The writ petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. Since his explanation was not found satisfactory, a charge memo has been drawn against him on 12.07.2010 by the Managing Director of the Society. However, the Managing Director requested the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar to appoint a senior level revenue official as an Enquiry Officer. Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that this is contrary to the disciplinary procedure adopted by the respondent Society, which required one of the officers of the organization itself to be appointed as an Enquiry Officer. But, however, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that several senior officers of the district administration have been entrusted with the task of conducting the enquiries in the past, in view of the sensitivity and the nature of the allegations thrown against the officers of the Society. Hence one can assume that such a practice has gained currency. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has rightly pointed out that the Enquiry Officer was required to examine the witnesses, if any in the presence of the delinquent employee. The explanation of the delinquent employee cannot be obtained for each of the charges and he cannot be asked to leave the enquiry proceedings for the Enquiry Officer to carry on the rest of the proceedings entirely on his/her own and behind his back. This procedure is incompatible with the principle of providing a fair and reasonable opportunity for every delinquent employee to establish his defence. It is therefore, imperative that an Enquiry Officer appointed for conducting the enquiry must hold the enquiry in the presence of the delinquent employee himself. The witnesses whom the organization wishes to examine must be examined in his presence with a right of cross-examination for him. Similarly, the documents, which are sought to be relied upon, have got to be exhibited before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer in the presence of the delinquent employee, after supplying copies thereof to the delinquent employee. Then the delinquent employee will be able to effectively participate in the deliberations and bring home his defence. Otherwise, it would amount to condemning him behind his back. When this principle is debated at the Bar, Sri K. Ramanujachari, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Society is candid enough in saying that this is a well-established procedure for conducting disciplinary enquiries, but however, the learned Standing Counsel is not able to vouch that the Enquiry Officer has followed such a procedure in conducting the present enquiry. When the writ petitioner, in paragraph 29 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, has categorically pleaded that no enquiry whatever has been conducted in his presence, and as soon as he has tendered his explanation, he was asked to leave the office room of the Additional Joint Collector-cum-Enquiry Officer, it is imperative that the Enquiry Officer must necessarily confirm as to whether the enquiry was conducted in his presence or not. Hence, it is only appropriate to draw an adverse inference in the matter that the enquiry has not been conducted by the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the writ petitioner. That will be a fatality to the entire exercise. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Managing Director of the Society, who is the 2nd respondent herein, to examine as to whether the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in the presence of the writ petitioner herein or not. If he is satisfied that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted such an enquiry in the presence of the writ petitioner, it is needless to note that the end result of such an enquiry manifesting itself in the form of an Enquiry Officer’s report can neither be acted upon nor can it be accepted. In such an event, the Managing Director will have to remand the matter back to the Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary enquiry afresh, duly examining the witnesses and marking the documents, which the society proposes to rely upon, in the very presence of the writ petitioner, by affording him a fair and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine all such witnesses that are examined on behalf of the Society and also produce such witnesses, who are willing to speak in his favour and also allow him to produce the copies of such documents, which would tend to establish his defence. Appropriate decision in this regard may be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the decision taken thereat be communicated to the writ petitioner. In view of the above order, I have not examined any of the other contentions canvassed by the writ petitioner in the above Writ Petition and hence, they are all kept open. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 7th March 2011 ksld