THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19415 OF 2003 DATED 29TH OCTOBER, 2010 BETWEEN Syed Badar Ali … Petitioner And A.P. Residential Educational Institution Society, (Regd.) Through its Vice President, Having office at III Floor, Gagan Vihar, Hyderabad-500 001 And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19415 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner, formerly an Attender in the Andhra Pradesh Residential School for Girls at Medak, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Show Cause Notice dated 01.08.2000. The allegation against the petitioner was that he molested a girl student on 18.10.1998. He submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice on 08.08.2000 denying the allegation. He was dismissed from service under proceedings dated 30.04.2001. His appeal against the same was dismissed on 09.07.2001 and his review petition was rejected on 30.08.2001. Hence, this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was dismissed from service without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without any enquiry. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that on the allegations levelled against the petitioner by a girl student, the Academic Guidance Officer of the second respondent society conducted an enquiry on 05.04.1999 and basing on the same, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner under proceedings dated 01.08.2000. This enquiry obviously was a preliminary enquiry. The petitioner did not participate in the same. The counter goes on to state that the procedure laid down in the Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of the Society was strictly followed while imposing punishment on the petitioner. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the procedure followed by the respondents while dismissing the petitioner from service is in accordance with the rule of law. No doubt, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is utmost serious in nature. The seriousness of the charge however would not be sufficient in itself for the respondents to dispense with procedural requirements while taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Upon a query from the Court in this regard, Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly conceded that the Rules of the second respondent society did not empower the respondents to resort to an arbitrary and unilateral procedure, whereby the capital punishment of dismissal from service could be levied on the basis of the mere seriousness of the charge without further ado. Though it is stated in the counter that the procedure laid down in the relevant Rules of the society had been followed, the same is not substantiated during the hearing and no material is placed before the Court in support thereof. When the respondents proposed to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service carrying with it a stigma, it was necessary for the respondents to cause a full-fledged enquiry into the matter with the active participation of the petitioner, duly giving him full opportunity to present his case. The failure on the part of the respondents in this regard cannot be condoned or overlooked owing to the seriousness of the charge levelled against the petitioner. The dismissal of the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 30.04.2001, confirmed in appeal on 09.07.2001 and thereafter in review on 30.08.2001, is accordingly set aside. This shall however not preclude the respondents from initiating action afresh against the petitioner in due accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH OCTOBER, 2010. VGSR/PGS