THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 14305 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed against proceedings No.Vig.1/5541/Vig-1/2003-1 issued by 1st respondent-Managing Director dated 25.6.2009, whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from service. It appears, while working at Parvathipuram Deputy Executive Engineer, petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet dated 3.10.2005, enumerating the following charges: “Charge No.1: On 26.8.2003 she has collected bribe at District Cooperative Central Bank, Saluru from the beneficiaries of Konda Kenguva village of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal @ 8% from the amount granted to them for construction of houses to them under Rural Housing Scheme for the year 2000-2001 through Sri Chintala Ramachandra Rao, Work Inspector, APSHC Ltd., Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Saluru Section, Vizianagaram District. Charge No.2: She has committed several irregularities in construction of houses to the beneficiaries allotted under IAY and RPHS and thereby caused wrongful loss to the APSHC Ltd to a tune of Rs.4,29,100/-. And thus he violated the provisions of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964”. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 17.8.2007 holding as follows: Charge No.1: On 26.8.2003 she has collected bribe at District Cooperative Central Bank, Saluru from the beneficiaries of Konda Kenguva village of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal @ 8% from the amount granted to them for construction of houses to them under Rural Housing Scheme for the year 2000-2001 through Sri Chintala Ramachandra Rao, Work Inspector, APSHC Ltd., Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Saluru Section, Vizianagaram District. ENQUIRY OFFICER’S REPORT: The charge is that the Delinquent Officer (DO) has collected bribe through Sri Chintala Ramachandra Rao, WI at District Cooperative Central Bank, Saluru from the beneficiaries of Kondakenguva village of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal at 8% from the amount granted to them for construction of houses. In the statement of Imputation of Articles of Charges, Annexure-II, of G.O.Rt.No.333 Housing (Vigilance) Department dated 3.10.2005, it is stated that Sri Chintala Ramachandra Rao, WI, APSHCL, Ramabhadrapuram, Saluru section has admitted to have collected 8% of bribe from 18 beneficiaries of the colony and it is intended to be distributed among Dy.EE, APSHCL, Parvathipuram, AE, APSHCL, Saluru Section, office staff of Dy.EE, APSHCL Parvathipuram, two private persons and WI Ramachandra Rao at 1%, 3%, 1%, 1% and 2% respectively to do official favour in granting the amount for construction of houses. Apart from statement of Sri Chintala Ramachandra Rao, WI that out of 8% collected 1% is alleged to be paid to Dy.EE, there is no evidence that the DO has actually collected the said bribe amount. Based on mere allegation by the WI, it could not be said that she has collected the bribe through WI, Ramachandrapuram Mandal. Hence charge is not proved. Charge No.2: She has committed several irregularities in construction of houses to the beneficiaries allotted under IAY and RPHS and thereby caused wrongful loss to the APSHC Ltd to a tune of Rs.4,29,100/-. And thus he violated the provisions of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Thus Smt. Aripaka Nageswari by her above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty, conduct unbecoming of a member of service and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) and (2) of the APCS (Conduct) rules, 1964. ENQUIRY OFFICER’S REPORT: The Enquiry Officer (EO) along with Presenting Officer/DM (H) Vizianagaram inspected Konda Kengva village of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal on 9.8.2007. Based on Annexures I, II, III & IV, house to house physical verification is done along with representative of Sarpanch and one Sri Satyamnaidu from 10.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. It is noted that the physical verification by EO is totally tallying with inspection report given by the Dy.EE, PR, V&QC Dvn. Vizianagaram dt 2.9.2003, wherein it is reported that out of 165 houses taken up in the village, 20 hourse are not found for which payment is released and for 22 houses, the stages not tallied to that of payments made. Therefore, it is proved that there were irregularities in releasing the payments to the houses i) for 20 houses which are not constructed and ii) 22 houses where physical stage is not tallying with the payments to the extent of Rs.4,29,100/-. Therefore, the charge is proved”. Subsequently, 1st respondent-disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service, as follows: “The Enquiry Officer/Chief Engineer, APSHCL., Hyderabad after conducting detailed enquiry into the allegations duly following the procedure laid down admitted the enquiry report through the reference 5th cited. The enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer/Chief Engineer (H), Hyderabad has been examined with reference to material available on record and noticed that the charge No.1 i.e. collected bribe at Dist. Cooperative Central Bank, Saluru from the beneficiaries of Konda Kenguva (V) of Ramabhadrapuram is not held proved. The charge No.2 i.e. committed several irregularities in construction of houses allotted under IAY & RPHS and thereby caused loss to APSHCL., is held proved against Smt. A. Nageswari, Dy. Executive Engineer, APSHCL., Parvathipuram Sub Division, Vizianagaram District. The Government after detailed examination of the finding of the Enquiry Officer/Chief Engineer (Housing)Hyd., have issued a memo vide reference 6th cited directing Smt. A. Nageswari, Dy. Executive Engineer, APSHCL., Parvathipuram Sub Division, Vizianagaram District to submit her detailed explanation. Smt. A. Nageswari, Dy.Executive Engineer, APSHCL., Parvathipuram Sub Division, Vizianagaram District has submitted her explanation vide ref.7th cited. The explanation submitted by the Accused Officer has been examined and decided to impose penalty under rule-9 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 for the charge proved against her. Accordingly, the punishment of ‘Dismissal’ from service besides recovery of Rs.85,820/- is hereby imposed on Smt. A. Nageswari, Dy. Executive Engineer, APSHCL., Parvathipuram Sub Division, Vizianagaram District under rule- 9(x) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 for the charge proved against her. The General Manager (I/c), APSHCL., Vizianagaram District shall take further action accordingly”. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Managing Director has no authority under the law for passing the order of dismissal. G.O.Ms.No.33 Housing (R.H) dated 5.6.1998 governs the service conditions of the concerned employees. According to the said G.O., the competent person to dismiss an officer of Deputy Executive Engineer cadre is the Board but not the Managing Director. This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Even according to the respondents, charge No.1 is not proved. The only charge proved is charge No.2. A bare reading of charge No.2 would indicate that it is as vague as it could be and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as noticed above, are much worse than the charge and such report by the Enquiry Officer, which is not based on any evidence, has been accepted by the Managing Director, who has no authority under the law in passing the impugned order. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, forthwith, with all consequential benefits. However, this will not preclude the respondents from conducting a detailed enquiry into charge No.2 by furnishing all the documents, permitting the petitioner to examine the witnesses cited on behalf of the management and passing appropriate orders, as per law. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 5-7-2010. MVB.