THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23425 of 2000 ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy): The petitioner obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued after calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 02.03.2000 of the second respondent – Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Legislature Affairs & Justice Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and to quash the same as inoperative, illegal, arbitrary besides oppose to the principles of natural justice, and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. The relevant facts, which give rise to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioner joined as District Munsiff in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service on 07.10.1985 and he was promoted as Sub Judge on 05.11.1992. While so, the fourth respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam, addressed a letter dated 19.07.1996 to the High Court complaining that while the petitioner was working as In-charge Sub- Judge, Anakapalli, he committed various irregularities and illegalities in disposing of the land acquisition matters and releasing funds to the claimants, and therefore, requested this Court to enquire into the matter. The sixth respondent-Registrar (Management) of this Court, in turn, called for a report from the fifth respondent-District Judge, Visakhapatnam v i d e D.O.Lr.No.866/96/Vigilence Cell, dated 02.11.1996. In obedience to the same, the District Judge, Visakhapatnam sent a detailed report on 05.11.1996, followed by three more reports dated 25.11.1996, 30.11.1996 and 31.12.1996. Basing on the said reports and the material available on record, this Court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case of grave misconduct has been committed by the petitioner, and accordingly, ordered a regular departmental enquiry against him, while placing him under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 14.11.1996. The seventh respondent- Enquiry Officer framed 24 charges and served the same along with the grounds of charges through the fifth respondent to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted a preliminary written statement on 27.12.1997 reserving his right to file additional written statement. The Enquiry Officer, after holding the enquiry, submitted his report on 16.09.1998 exonerating the petitioner from charge Nos.2 and 11, while holding that he is guilty of charge Nos.1, 3 to 10 and 12 to 24. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28113 of 1998 to declare the action of the Enquiry Officer in closing the enquiry abruptly without giving reasonable opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses, as biased, malafide, arbitrary, and to declare the consequential report of the Enquiry Officer as non-est under law. The Disciplinary Committee of the High Court, after accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a final Show Cause Notice on 30.12.1998 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.02.1999. The High Court found that the explanation offered by the petitioner was unsatisfactory and recommended to the Governor for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The Government, after considering the report of the High Court, passed orders dismissing the petitioner from service through the impugned G.O. dated 02.03.2000. In view of the dismissal of the petitioner from service, W.P.No.28113 of 1998 filed by him was dismissed as infructuous. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion for recommending dismissal of the petitioner from service pending W.P.No.28113 of 1998 filed by him, to declare the ex parte enquiry report of the seventh respondent-Enquiry Officer closing the enquiry on 04.07.1998 without giving opportunity to him, as illegal, malafide and the consequential proceedings of the third respondent as non-est under law. It is also stated that there are no findings of the Enquiry Officer except narrating the averments and that the report of the Enquiry Officer is completely biased, and arbitrary without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and violative of principles of natural justice. The findings are based on facts and not on record and there is no evidence to conclude that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The suspension order was passed on 14.11.1996 appointing the seventh respondent as Enquiry Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the CCA Rules, 1963). The allegations mainly concentrated on issuance of cheque on 27.11.1995 in passing orders in E.P.No.60 of 1995. The charges (24) were framed by the Enquiry Officer on 16.05.1997 i.e., six months after suspension of the petitioner and the enquiry was commenced eight months thereafter i.e., on 31.01.1998. The first five charges relate to issuance of a cheque on 27.10.1995 and charges 6 to 24 relate to the alleged Yeleru Scam, which was published in newspapers since 19.11.1996. In the absence of any order or direction to enquire or seize the records in the central record room, the fifth respondent-the District Judge, Visakhapatnam had no authority to seize, tamper or peruse the records. The alleged enquiry and reports dated 30.11.1996 and 31.12.1996 are unauthorised, illegal and without jurisdiction. The sixth respondent-Registrar (Management) of High Court has no jurisdiction to forward the reports by the alleged orders dated 22.01.1997 and 20.02.1997 to the seventh respondent for framing the charges in the absence of any authorisation given to the seventh respondent to conduct enquiry. The charges were not enquired into to come to any conclusion that except the alleged ex parte evidence of P.Ws.2 to 10, there is no other evidence on record, since the petitioner and his counsel could not cross-examine them. Therefore, the charges cannot be held proved and the said fact was not taken into consideration by this Court. It is further stated that the charges are vague and not specific as contemplated under Rule 19(2) of the CCA Rules, 1963, since each charge does not contain the allegations referring to the documents relied upon with the names of the witnesses, who will substantiate the allegations in the charges levelled against the petitioner, except the sweeping allegations of the fifth respondent. The Enquiry Officer acted malafidely by showing bias at every stage. The documents relied upon in respect of charges 1 to 5 on the report of respondents 4 and 5 and Annexures 9, 10, P.12 and 13 had not been supplied to the Enquiry Officer and hence, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the reports of the fifth respondent. The documents, which were marked during the course of cross- examination of the fifth respondent in respect of charges 6 to 24, did not take place since 05.02.1998 as the Enquiry Officer acted according to the directions of respondents 5 and 6, who are superior in cadre to him. In his report dated 16.09.1998, the Enquiry Officer narrated what the fifth respondent deposed and held as if the petitioner is guilty of the charges and failed to discharge his legitimate duty as quasi-judicial authority. It is further stated that the petitioner filed W.P.No.7711 of 1998 alleging bias of the Enquiry Officer yielding to dictations of the fifth respondent-senior most District Judge at Visakhapatnam. The Enquiry Officer did not choose to supply the relevant documents on the plea that the same were not available as per the endorsement on the application of the petitioner. In the said writ petition, the Enquiry Officer filed a counter rebutting the allegation that charge sheet was not framed under Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the CCA Rules, 1991), and stating that he passed an order on 27.12.1997 on the memo filed by his counsel to the effect that all the documents required by the petitioner were supplied under acknowledgment and the documents, if any, are marked at the time of enquiry they will be supplied before cross-examining the witnesses through whom the documents will be marked and that the names of the witnesses to be examined at the time of enquiry have been mentioned in Form-1 supplied to the petitioner along with the charges and grounds of charges and if any additional witnesses are examined, the same will be informed to him before examining them. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit the list of documents not supplied and other documents to substantiate his contentions. When the enquiry was posted from 04.07.1998 to 08.07.1998, the counsel for the petitioner sent a telegram on 01.07.1998 and a memo by speed post to the Enquiry Officer for adjourning the matter to any date after 15.07.1998, as the petitioner and his counsel were attending the Commission of Inquiry at Hyderabad from 04.07.1998 to 13.07.1998 and along with the memo he also enclosed the schedule. The Enquiry Officer brushed aside both the memo and telegram at the instance of respondents 5 and 6, rejected the request for adjournment and closed the enquiry on 04.07.1998 abruptly. However, the Enquiry Officer gave an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his arguments at Rajahmundry while refusing the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reopening and completing the enquiry in accordance with statute. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry for six days i.e., from 31.01.1998 to 05.02.1998, eight days in March, 1998, four days in June, 1998 and one day in July, 1998 in the absence of any permission to continue enquiry beyond three months, which is unauthorised. P.Ws.2 to 10 were examined behind the petitioner. The second respondent communicated the impugned order of dismissal under Clause (x) of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, 1991, which were not made applicable till January, 1999 by this Court, whereas enquiry was conducted under the CCA Rules, 1963. On that ground the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. The impugned order dated 02.05.2000 was not issued under Clause (x) of Rule 9(1) r/w Rule 2(e) of the CCA Rules, 1963, as the enquiry was proceeded on the directions dated 14.11.1996 of the third respondent-Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Further, charges were not framed under Rule 19(2) by the Enquiry Officer which is total non-application of mind under the Statute vitiates the entire proceedings. The subsistence of the allowances was not paid to the petitioner in full since 17.11.1997, and hence, the ex parte enquiry proceedings and the consequential impugned order are nonest under law. Though the petitioner requested to postpone the enquiry on 13.06.1998 and on 04.07.1998 on valid reasons, rejecting the said request and conducting the ex parte enquiry at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 is violative of principles of natural justice. Even on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3,5,6 & 7 narrating the events for initiation of departmental enquiry till its culmination in dismissal of the petitioner from service. In the said counter-affidavit, it was stated that the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on the material available on record and the deposition of the witnesses. In all, 10 witnesses were examined and 361 exhibits were marked on both sides. With regard to para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that various pleas on facts narrated by the petitioner need not be adverted to as they are with regard to disposal of various L.A.O.Ps. If the petitioner had anything to present on facts he could have done so before the Enquiry Officer. But, the petitioner did not chose to do so and wantonly and deliberately avoided participating in the enquiry for a major part and failed to file additional written statement after closing the evidence on departmental side. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from raising any pleas, which he had not raised before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the petitioner should have challenged the enquiry report by filing an appeal. The High Court after receipt of the letter of the fourth respondent on 31.07.1996 directed the fifth respondent-District Judge, Visakhapatnam to send a report on the said letter. In obedience to the same, the fifth respondent sent his report dated 05.11.1996 to the High Court followed by further reports dated 25.11.1996 and 30.11.1996. Considering the said report of the fifth respondent, the Administrative Committee of the High Court resolved to order a regular departmental enquiry. It is denied that the records pertaining to charges 6 to 24 were seized by the fifth respondent and in fact the High Court directed the seizure of all the records in L.A.O.Ps dealt by the petitioner with a direction to the fifth respondent to probe into the matters and involvement of the petitioner, if any. It is further stated that on 07.03.1998 and 15.03.1998 both the petitioner and his counsel were absent at the enquiry. Hence, the Enquiry Officer treated that the petitioner had no further cross- examination of P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 8 were examined as per the schedule and the enquiry was posted to 04.04.1998 to 12.04.1998 for further evidence. At that juncture, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7711 of 1998 making all false and unsubstantiated allegations against the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 21.04.1998 while holding that the petitioner did not make out any case on those allegations, permitted the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and had also recorded the concession made on behalf of the department that necessary documents will be supplied. After disposal of the said writ petition, notices were issued by the Enquiry Officer to all those concerned after fixing the schedule for enquiry from 13.06.1998 to 16.06.1998 at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was present and filed a memo for grant of time for cross- examination. Though the said memo was rejected, the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, but, however, he failed to do so. On 28.06.1998, the learned counsel for the petitioner sent a petition requesting the Enquiry Officer to reopen the enquiry for cross- examination of P.Ws.1 to 10 and the same was allowed and enquiry was rescheduled fixing 04.07.1998 to 08.07.1998 for cross examination. On 04.07.1998 the petitioner and his counsel were absent and the counsel for the petitioner sent a memo for an adjournment, which was rejected by the Enquiry Officer. As the petitioner failed to show any interest in participating in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer closed the evidence on departmental side and posted the enquiry to 08.07.1998 for filing additional written statement and list of witnesses from the petitioner’s side. On 08.07.1998 also neither the petitioner nor his counsel attended the enquiry and they have not even sent any memo seeking adjournment. The Enquiry Officer has no other option except to close the enquiry treating that the petitioner has no evidence to adduce on his behalf. After receiving the memo of arguments filed by the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.09.1998. The charges framed were very specific and the charge memo issued was in line to Rule 19(2) of the CCA Rules, 1963. All the necessary documents were supplied to the petitioner and the said fact was recorded by this Court in W.P.No.7711 of 1998, wherein it was further recorded that there is no basis to say that the Enquiry Officer is either led away or colluded with P.W.1 (the District Judge, Visakhapatnam). After the unearthing of the scam, the High Court, on administrative side, directed the amounts credited to the respective bank accounts to a tune of Rs.6.51 Crores in the said L.A.O.Ps, not to be released pending further orders. The fifth respondent through FAX reported this Court that since no appeals were preferred by the Government, it was difficult to withhold payments. The said FAX message was taken up as a taken up writ petition, wherein the Full Bench of this Court issued a blanket stay order stopping payment through cheques in all the matters. In para 17 of the counter-affidavit, it was admitted that the CCA Rules, 1991 apply to employees covered by judicial service only from 01.01.1998. But, a mistake occurred, while communicating the order of dismissal to the petitioner, wherein the order referred to CCA Rules, 1991, instead of the CCA Rules, 1963, and the same was a bona fide mistake on the part of the second respondent. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit nearly after one year of filing counter-affidavit by some of the respondents, inter alia, contending that while the enquiry initiated was pending, the Government of Andhra Pradesh by Gazette Notification dated 05.02.1997 appointed the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.R.Nayak as Commissioner of Inquiry under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to enquire into certain irregularities and acts of corruption in passing of awards and payment of compensation in the acquisition of land for Yeleru Left Main Canal. The learned Judge tendered his resignation and the same was accepted by the Government. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.468-Revenue (LA) Department, dated 02.06.1997 nominating the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.K.Somasekhara as Commissioner of Inquiry setting out the terms of reference. Further, based on a report given by P.Usha Kumari, RDO, Visakhapatnam, the CID, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.10 of 1997 under Sections 120(b), 408, 471, 420 and 409 I.P.C in respect of land acquisition pertaining to Pisinikada Village. The CID, Hyderabad also registered a case in Crime No.327 of 1996 on the report of one Malla Jagannadham, and on the strength of a message dated 01.12.1996 of the sixth respondent-Registrar (Management) of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, under Sections 466, 467, 468, 409, 406, 471, 474, 419 and 420 r/w Section 120 (b) and 109 I.P.C of Anakapalle Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District in respect of land acquisition cases of Yeleru Left Main Canal. Similarly, Crime No.6 of 1997 under Sections 120-b, 468, 471, 409 and 420 I.P.C was registered on the report of one Sri Mahesh Lingam, I.A.S in respect of land acquisition for Steel Plant. Crime No.7 of 1997 was also registered under the same Sections in respect of Yelamanchili land acquisition on the report of M.Rama Rao, RDO, Narsipatnam. In respect of the said crimes, report has been submitted by the CID, Hyderabad expressing their inability to file charge sheets in view of the fact that some of the offences committed by the accused therein attract the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii)(iii) of Cr.P.C. The procedure contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C has to be followed and therefore, the CID requested for initiation of necessary action. Pursuant to the same, the fifth respondent conducted enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C and filed complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same were numbered as C.C.Nos.1 of 1999, 2 of 1999 and 110 of 2000, in which the petitioner was arrayed as A.2. There were several other complaints with which the petitioner was not concerned. This Court, by order dated 27.09.2002, in Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2000 and Criminal Petition No.5375 of 2001 and batch set aside the orders of the District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and directed the Registrar to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who may place the matter before the appropriate Bench for passing orders under Section 340 Cr.P.C. But, however, the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam have not been closed and the petitioner is made to attend the cases whenever they were posted before the learned Magistrate. Charge Nos.1 to 5 relate to the land acquisition at Pisinikada Village and specifically pertain to the execution proceedings in O.P.No.21 of 1987 and E.P.No.21 of 1994. Charge No.22 pertain to the land acquisition in respect of Steel Plant, while Charge Nos.6 to 21 and 24 pertain to the land acquisition proceedings of Yeleru Left Main Canal. Charge No.23 relates to the land acquisition at Yelamanchili. This Court in its Circular bearing Roc.No.2053/SO/32, dated 05.12.1997 in continuation of its earlier Circular dated 15.02.1993 extended the application of CCA Rules, 1991, in suppression of Circular dated 15.02.1993 to conduct regular departmental enquiry against judicial officers and judicial employees initiated on or after 01.01.1998. Thus, it is clear that the provisions of CCA Rules, 1963 would govern the enquiry. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.7711 of 1998, the enquiry was re-commenced on 13.06.1998, on which date the petitioner filed a memo seeking adjournment on the ground that his counsel was not well. However, the Enquiry Officer refused to grant time and examined P.W.9. The Enquiry Officer also recorded that insofar as P.W.9 is concerned “no cross-examination” and adjourned the matter to next date i.e., 14.06.1998. When the mater was posted to 14.06.1998, 15.06.1998, 16.06.1998, 28.06.1998 and 08.07.1998, the petitioner was present on 14.06.1998, 15.06.1998 and 16.06.1998, but his counsel could not appear, as he could not travel from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam due to his old age. On 15.06.1998, the petitioner filed a memo seeking time and the same was refused permitting him to cross-examine the witnesses. P.W.10 was examined and Ex.P.328 was marked. On 16.06.1998, the Presenting Officer filed a memo giving up the evidence of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, who was cited as additional witness. The Presenting Officer also filed a memo to frame additional charges and closed the evidence. Insofar as the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 to 8 is concerned, the Presiding Officer refused to grant any time and directed the petitioner to file his additional written statement and list of witnesses on 28.06.1998 at Visakhapatnam. In the meanwhile, since serious prejudice would have been caused to the petitioner due to non-cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 10, he submitted a petition on 28.06.1998 for reopening the enquiry for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 10. The said application was allowed and the matter was posted from 04.07.1998 to 08.07.1998 for cross-examination. The enquiry was to be conducted at Visakhapatnam where P.W.1 was actually posted. On 01.07.1998 and 02.07.1998, the petitioner and his counsel sent telegrams followed by a memo for adjournment, since the petitioner received notice from the Commission of Inquiry about holding of its sitting in the premises of High Court of A.P. from 04.07.1998 to 07.07.1998, 11.07.1998 to 13.07.1998, 18.07.1998, 20.07.1998 and 25.07.1998 to 27.07.1998. The petitioner was not aware of this inquiry on 28.06.1998, when he filed a petition to reopen the enquiry. The notification of the said Commission of Inquiry itself was dated 28.06.1998 and he received the same subsequently by post. He attended the enquiry along with his counsel on the above said dates, and therefore, he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer and could not cross-examine the witnesses, as permitted by the Enquiry Officer by allowing the petition filed by the petitioner on 28.06.1998, which is evident that no reasonable opportunity of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 10, filing additional written statement and list of witnesses was given to the petitioner. Rule 19(2)(d) of the CCA Rules, 1963 postulates that every order imposing a penalty shall state the grounds on which it is passed. The impugned order does not disclose the brief history and independent assessment on the part of the appointing authority while passing the order of dismissal. The termination effected under Clause (x) of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules, 1991, have no application to the case of the petitioner. Further, as per the CCA Rules, 1991, the charges have to be framed by the disciplinary authority and not by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer also did not follow the Rules as set out in the CCA Rules, 1991. The report of the Enquiry Officer is primarily based on the evidence of P.W.1, who was partly cross-examined by the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that he had only suspicion, and based on mere suspicion, the Enquiry Officer gave his report without there being any evidence. A reply affidavit also has been filed on behalf of the petitioner