THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16552 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in Suryapet Depot of APSRTC. The Depot Manager, the 2 nd respondent herein, issued a charge sheet dated 27.11.2006, alleging that the petitioner contested in the election for the oﬃce of Sarpanch of Ambajipet Grampanchayat, held on 2.8.2006, without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, in terms of Regulation 23 (3) of APSRTC (Conduct) Regulations 1963. A further allegation was made to the eﬀect that the petitioner did not inform the depot authorities about his contesting in the election. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.3.2008, admitting the factum of his contesting the elections. He, however, stated that in view of the clariﬁcation issued by the State Election Commission, he found that it is not necessary to obtain prior permission, or to resign his job. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 1.7.2008, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenges the order of dismissal, mainly on the ground that it was not preceded by domestic enquiry, or the show-cause notice, contemplated under Clause (13) of Regulation 12 of the APSRTC Employees ( Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, (for short “the Regulations”). Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the State Election Commission had issued clariﬁcation, just before the elections, to the eﬀect that the employees of the Government Undertakings can also contest in the elections. He submits that even assuming that the petitioner has committed any acts of misconduct, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents, to conduct domestic enquiry and to issue a second show-cause notice, in case, the enquiry oﬃcer held the charges as proved. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is passed, in clear violation of the service regulations. Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the petitioner admitted that he contested in the elections, without resigning his job, there was neither any necessity to conduct domestic enquiry, nor to issue a second show-cause notice. She submits that the occasion to conduct departmental enquiry arises, only when an employee denies or disputes the charge framed against him. The petitioner does not dispute that he contested in the elections for the oﬃce of Sarpanch of Ambaripet Grampanchayat, held on 2.8.2006. He appears to have reeled under the impression that the necessity to resign the post held by him, would arise, if only he is elected. On ﬁnding that he was not elected as Sarpanch, the petitioner did not submit his resignation. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice, framing the following the charges: “ ( 1 ) For having contested in Sarpanch elections as a candidate of Sarpanch of Ambaripeta village (in reservation quota) which was held on 2.8.2006 without obtaining prior permission from concerned authority, A.P.S.R.T.C., Suryapet, which comes under misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.23(3) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. (2 ) For having failed to inform the fact to depot authorities contesting in Grampanchayat elections as Sarpanch from Ambaripet village which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of Reg.28(xvii) & (xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” Placing reliance upon the clariﬁcations issued by the State Election Commission, from time to time, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The 2nd respondent did not appoint any enquiry oﬃcer, and passed the impugned order, on a consideration of the charge sheet and the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner. The regulations prescribe a detailed procedure to be followed, before a major or minor penalty is imposed upon an employee of the Corporation. Regulation 12 prescribes the procedure to be followed, before the major penalties, such as, reduction in pay-scale, removal from service and dismissal from service are inﬂicted. Holding of domestic enquiry becomes necessary. It may be true that the necessity to appoint enquiry oﬃcer , or to conduct domestic enquiry would arise, only when the employee denies the charges, and conversely there would not be any necessity to appoint such an oﬃcer, if the employee admits the charges. All the same, an important step in the disciplinary proceedings, against an employee, viz; appointing of enquiry oﬃcer, cannot be dispensed with, on the basis of presumptions. The enquiry can be dispensed with, only when the admission of the charge by an employee is unequivocal and clear. A conditional admission or a justiﬁcation pleaded on the part of the employee would keep the necessity to appoint the enquiry officer, intact. In the instant case, the petitioner no doubt admitted that he contested in the election, but has justiﬁed the same, by placing reliance upon some material issued by the Election Commission. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is under obligation to examine the same, fairly and objectively, by conducting an enquiry by himself, or by appointing an enquiry oﬃcer. Such a step was not taken. Regulation 12(13) places the obligation on the Corporation, to issue a show-cause notice to the employee, indicating the proposed punishment. It reads as under: “The authority competent to impose the penalty shall then determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the employee, and pass appropriate orders on the case. If the penalty proposed to be imposed is one of the penalties speciﬁed in terms (vii) (viii) and (ix) of regulation 8, he should be given an opportunity to show cause why the said penalty should not be imposed.” The requirement under the above said provision is absolute. Even where the circumstances, that warrant dispensing with the domestic enquiry exist, the disciplinary authority cannot skip the step contemplated under this regulation. Issuance of a notice, under clause (13) of Regulation 12, or any similar provision, has a deﬁnite and clear object to serve. The service regulations themselves deﬁne misconducts of varying in degrees. Similarly, the punishment that can be imposed on an employee, on disciplinary grounds, are also listed in the relevant regulation. It cannot be said with any mathematical precession that a particular act of misconduct would lead to the punishment of a given category. Even where two individuals are accused of the same act of misconduct, the nature of punishment would depend not only upon the circumstances, under which the misconduct had emerged, but also upon the extenuating or aggravating circumstances, that can be discerned from the past service of the concerned employee. The notice contemplated under Regulation 12(13) provides an avenue or occasion for the employer, to undertake such an exercise. While there can be circumstances that can justify the failure to conduct domestic enquiry, there is no escape for a disciplinary authority from applying the regulation 12 (13). Admittedly, in the instant case, neither the domestic enquiry was conducted, nor any notice under Regulation 12(13) was issued. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. This, however, would not preclude the respondents, from taking necessary action, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 31st July 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN