THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.5487 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal) allowing O.A.No.12368 of 2009 filed by the first respondent seeking to set aside the proceedings, dated 30.06.2009 issued by the petitioner in removing him from service. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent, while working as Attender/Office Subordinate, was placed under suspension vide proceedings, dated 05.09.2002 on the ground that the staff of the Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, have made a complaint against him. One of the allegations in the said complaint is that he had produced a bogus VII Class marks list at the time of his appointment. Based on the preliminary report of the Enquiry Officer, dated 12.05.2003, the first respondent was reinstated into service pending enquiry vide proceedings, dated 04.10.2003, and thereafter, he was served with a charge memo, dated 27.05.2008, for which he submitted his explanation on 12.06.2008, denying the charges. While so, the petitioner issued a notice, dated 22.09.2008, under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules’) to the first respondent to show cause as to why the major penalty of removal from service should not be imposed against him. It is stated that the said notice was communicated to the first respondent on 05.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.9122 of 2008 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same on 18.11.2008 as not maintainable on the show cause notice. Challenging the said order, he filed W.P.No.27369 of 2008 wherein this Court granted interim suspension of the order dated 18.11.2008 in O.A.No.9122 of 2008 and the show cause notice dated 22.09.2008. Subsequently, this Court, placing on record the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner that the regular enquiry has been conducted and the first respondent was dismissed from service, dismissed the said writ petition as infructuous on 04.06.2009, giving liberty to the first respondent to question the said dismissal order. Thereafter, the petitioner issued proceedings, dated 30.06.2009, removing the first respondent from service. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed O.A.No.12368 of 2009 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed directing the petitioner to reinstate him into service immediately with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. Smt Ch. Veda Vani, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the appointment of the first respondent itself is illegal as he has produced a bogus VII Class marks list at the time of his appointment showing that he studied VII Class in Municipal High School (Main),Kadapa and secured 411 marks, whereas the enquiry revealed that he studied VII Class in Viswabharathi Oriental Upper Primary School, Mochampet, Kadapa and secured 301 marks. She further contended that the enquiry was conducted in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules and based on the enquiry report, the statements of the Head Master concerned and as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad, the first respondent was removed from service. She further contended that no prejudice is caused to the first respondent as he answered to the questionnaire given by the petitioner and that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the O.A. She submitted that the entire file was destroyed by the first respondent. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA[1] wherein it was held as under: “ the principles of natural justice may not be applicable in a given case unless a prejudice is shown-The application of the said principles is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise-Where the selection of the appellant employee was illegal as he was ineligible to be considered for appointment, the cancellation of his appointment without affording any opportunity of hearing to him by the Visitor of the University concerned (i.e, President of India), held, was proper-In such a case, it would have been a futile exercise to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard-Administrative Law- Natural justice-Exclusion or inapplicability of rules of natural justice. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram parterm is one of the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principles of natural justice should be followed. These principles cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The said principles may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise.” 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the removal order on the ground that the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules, imposed on the first respondent the major penalty of removal from service. He further contended that before imposing such penalty, the petitioner has not afforded an opportunity of being heard to the first respondent. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities. 7. A perusal of the material on record shows that initially, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and based on the enquiry report, a charge memo, dated 27.05.2008, was issued to the first respondent, who in turn submitted his explanation on 12.06.2008 denying the same. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a show cause notice on 22.09.2008, which was communicated to the first respondent on 05.11.2008, to show cause as to why the major penalty of removal from service should not be imposed. The petitioner issued the said show cause notice based on the report of the Parishad Educational Officer, Kadapa and directed for conducting disciplinary enquiry. But, without conducting the regular enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer, the petitioner issued proceedings, dated 30.06.2009 removing the first respondent from service. The petitioner issued the said proceedings only based on the enquiry report and as per the instructions of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment to take suitable action against the first respondent on the basis of the report of the Parishad Educational Officer, Z.P., Kadapa. Though the first respondent was suspended on 05.09.2002 and reinstated into service pending enquiry vide proceedings, dated 04.10.2003 based on the preliminary report of the Enquiry Officer, dated 12.05.2003, but as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules, the disciplinary authority has not conducted the regular enquiry by appointing the Enquiry Officer and so also no reasonable opportunity was given to the first respondent before imposing such a major penalty of removal from service, which is illegal and arbitrary. As such, the petitioner has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules before imposing the major penalty of removal from service, as rightly held by the Tribunal. That apart, the first respondent was neither served with the documents mentioned in the show cause notice, dated 22.09.2008 nor given him an opportunity of being heard before issuance of the order of removal from service. Therefore, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to proceed against the first respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:30.03.2010. sj [1] (2007) 4 SCC 54