( 1 ) THE petitioner while working as A. A. O. large scale defalcation of amounts more than Rs. 4,30,000. 00 was noticed by the board which was with the connivance of several others. In view of the same, the board by proceedings dated 08-01-1987 appointed Enquiry Officer to probe into the matter. The Enquiry Officer issued Charge memo on 25-08-1987 framing 7 charges to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25-10-1987. The Enquiry officer after conducting detailed enquiry into the charges submitted his report to the board stating that the charges are established and recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from service, besides recovery of Rs. 4,33,440. 16 Ps. The chairman of the Board, who ordered departmental enquiry, on examination of the report accepted the finding of the enquiry Officer and also provisionally concluded dismissal of the petitioner from service and issued show-cause notice on 09-08-1988 duly supplying report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 17-09-1988 pointing out several irregularities numbering 9 with regard to conducting enquiry by the enquiry officer and requested to set aside the Enquiry officer s report as no opportunity was given to him to defend himself in the regular enquiry. The 1st respondent after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner discussed each point by giving reasons and decided to confirm the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner besides recovery of Rs. 4,32,440. 16ps. Accordingly, the petitioner was removed from service by the impugned order dated 04-06-1990. Questioning the same present writ petition is filed contending that the 1st respondent, who is the appellate authority under the apseb Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short the Regulations ) framed by the board, himself passed the dismissal order depriving the petitioner s right to file an appeal, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the alleged defalcation was also ended in acquittal. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and not supplied the material and not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Though the petitioner in his explanation pointed out the above irregularities, in the impugned order the same were not properly adverted which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner has to be reinstated into service.

( 2 ) IN response to Rule Nisi, the Board filed a detailed counter stating that consequent on the outbreak of fire in E. R. O. , nandigama on 15-02-1986 and 16-02-1986 certain records were destroyed. It came to light that Board s funds amounting to lakhs of rupees were defalcated from 1/82 to 2/86 by some of the employees and to suppress the evidence, the records of the ERO were gutted by some vested interests. The petitioner and some other employees were kept under suspension pending enquiry into the grave charges. A police case was also filed and the Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment held that it is a clear case of mischief by fire, in gutting official records as evidenced by the Chemical Examiner s report, but acquitted the accused persons for lack of evidence. A departmental enquiry was ordered by appointing sri B. Koti Reddy, Senior Accounts Officer as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of defalcation of Board s funds against the petitioner and others. The enquiry Officer after preliminary investigation into the same, issued charge memo framing 7 charges. The Enquiry officer after fpllowing the procedure laid down in the Regulations submitted his report. As 17 employees of different categories are involved in the case, the chairman, APSEB appointed the Enquiry officer. The petitioner was given opportunity during the