THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3385 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the order passed by 1st respondent in Proc.Rc.No.1/Corrs/2001 dated 9.1.2003 as confirmed by the order bearing L.Dis.No.4885/A2/04 dated 15.12.2004 of 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice; consequently, to direct 1st and 2nd respondents to restore the increments withheld from 1.9.2002 with all arrears. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Maths Assistant in Canadian Baptist Mission (CBM) High School, Bheemunipatnam. The said school is a private aided institution and is managed by a Society, called ‘Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars (CBCNC). While that is so, 1st respondent issued Memo dated 31.7.2001, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had instigated some of the students to lodge complaint the school administration. Petitioner was given 2 days’ time to give explanation for the said memo. On 2.8.2001, petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the higher officials and had sent copies of the same to the higher officials. However, referring to the memo dated 31.7.2001 and explanation of the petitioner dated 2.8.2001, he was served another memo dated 19.9.2001 by the then correspondent alleging that he ought not to have sent copies of his explanation dated 2.8.2001 to higher officials directly and the very act of sending copies as aforesaid amounts to misbehaviour and indiscipline and in violation of Classification, Control & Appeal Rules. Petitioner submitted explanation to the second memo dated 19.9.2001 on 26.9.1991, inter alia, denying the allegations levelled against him. Not having satisfied with the issue of two memos, 1st respondent issued another memo dated 23.11.2001 making certain allegations that the petitioner refused to sign the minutes book pertaining to the meeting held on 9.11.2001, which was replied by him on 26.11.2001. Thereafter, 1st respondent issued charge sheet dated 18.4.2002 summing up all the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the three memos dated 31.7.2001, 19.9.2001 and 23.11.2001 and stating that by the said acts of misconduct, he had violated Rule 3 and 24 of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under the A.P.C.S. (C.C.&A) Rules, 1991. Petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, 2nd respondent gave provisional findings on 2.7.2002 finding petitioner guilty of each of the charges and imposing punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice the statement of imputation of misconduct, on which action is proposed to be taken against the petitioner, which reads as under: “The cause of action was the fact that Sri K.V.K. Sarma instigated Master Yerra Sreenu and Master Panchadarla Venkata Ramana, ex-students (SSC Batch 2000-2001) of the school to send complaints to higher authorities against the H.M. of the school. This was brought to the notice of the H.M. on 24.7.2001 by the students and their parents who gave written statements of the matter to the H.M. in the presence of some of the staff members. Sri K.V.K. Sarma was immediately called for to elicit the fact. His unruly behavious in the presence of the staff and the students and parents there caused much disturbance. This was raised in the staff meeting of 25.7.2001, Sri K.V.K. Sarma exploded and raised irrelevant issues there and challenged that he would directly send complaints in his name itself from thereon. Some of the staff members present there tried to convince him but he seemed to have some offensive in mind because of guilty conscience. Since he was disturbing the whole atmosphere, the H.M. preferred to put it in writing and issued a memo”. Admittedly, the summary of charge-sheet is that the petitioner has instigated some of the students against Head Mistress- cum-Correspondent, and she conducted enquiry by herself and thus she became judge in her own cause, which is contrary to principles of natural justice. 1st respondent could not have issued any charge- memo or conducted enquiry on her own. She ought to have entrusted the matter to some other member. Further, it appears that along with final proceedings the enquiry officer’s report was furnished, but, as decided in Karunakaran’s case, petitioner was entitled for supply of enquiry officer’s report before final orders were passed. No such course was taken. For these two reasons alone, writ petition is liable to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to recover the amounts of increments which were withheld for a period of two years. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 15-4-2010. MVB.