THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.20275 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.T19/955/2011, dated 06.06.2011, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: According to the petitioner, he joined in service as S.G.T in the Ashram School run by the second respondent-Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) in the year 1986 and later he was posted as Warden to the Ashram School Hostel in the year 1993. Subsequently, the said post of Warden was converted as Hostel Welfare Officer. While he was working as Hostel Welfare Officer, ST Boys Hostel, Maredmilli, East Godavari District, which is under the control of the second respondent, on 14.04.2011, the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare inspected the Hostel. Based on the report of the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, the second respondent suspended the petitioner vide proceedings dated 19.04.2011 alleging that there were some irregularities on his part. By the said proceedings, the second respondent also appointed the Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, as Enquiry Officer. Challenging the appointment of Enquiry Officer, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13151 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 30.04.2011 while setting aside the appointment of Enquiry Officer, held that the third respondent therein was at liberty to appoint another officer as Enquiry Officer and proceed with the enquiry and that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is stated that though the second respondent appointed the third respondent as Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 07.05.2011, no enquiry is commenced so far and the petitioner is still under suspension. It is further stated that the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2011 framing articles of charges on the report of the Deputy Director (TW), ITDA, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, dated 14.04.2011 again for the same allegations. Further, as the respondents reinstated several persons into service against whom departmental enquiry is not completed, the petitioner made representation dated 17.06.2011. But, the respondents did not consider the same so far. Hence, this writ petition. 3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’), an Enquiry Officer cannot be appointed unless the articles of charges are framed against the delinquent by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, appointing the third respondent as the Enquiry Officer is utter violation of the Rules. 5 . According to the petitioner, by virtue of the order dated 07.05.2011, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavarm was appointed as Enquiry Officer. But, a perusal of the said order indicates that the appointment of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampachodavarm is only to enquire into the suspension of the individual, but not to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner in pursuance of the articles of charges. Even assuming for a moment that this order can be treated as appointment of an Enquiry Officer, still there is a violation of Rule 20 of the Rules. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules contemplates that whenever it is proposed to hold an enquiry against the Government Servant, the disciplinary authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge. Even assuming that this Rule is violated, it would not cause hindrance in any manner in the defence of the petitioner, as he failed to explain the prejudice caused to him by virtue of framing articles of charges, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. BHANU, J Date: 19.07.2011 va