( 1 ) THIS is a classic case of the disciplinary proceedings groaning under unsurmountable intricate technicalities of service jurisprudence.

( 2 ) THE petitioner landed before this Court seeking number of reliefs. But, however, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge is only to the order of removal passed by the 5th respondent dated 19-8-1996 and the modified order of the 4th respondent dated 12-11-1996 reverting the petitioner to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-I for a period of 18 months.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was working as Chief Inspector (Enquiries) at the Regional Office, at Tirupathi. According to the petitioner, he made a request to the 2nd respondent - Regional Manager to change the Steno-Typist working with the petitioner as he was not maintaining secrecy of information. When he made such a request, the 2nd respondent for the reasons best known to him lost his temper and insulted in his Chambers. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 9-11-1995 by the 1st respondent and the charge-sheet was also issued on the same date alleging the following charges:"charge No. 1: For having entered the chambers of Regional Manager at 10-00 a. m. on 9-11-1995 without prior permission while he was attending on important urgent work, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (XXXII) of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963;charge No. 2: For your insubordination and misbehaviour with Regional manager by sitting before his table to record the enquiry statements in his chambers and not leaving his chamber on 9-11-95 in spite of instructions by Regional Manager to go to his room, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (viii) and (xxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963;charge No. 3: For having caused obstruction to attend the important urgent official work by Regional Manager on 9-11-95 in his chambers, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 9 (1) Note-2 (XIII) of apsrtc Employees (CCA) Regulations^ 1967. Charge No. 4: For your failure to obey the orders of the Regional Manager on 9-11-95 to leave his chambers and go to your chamber to record enquiry statements which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (viii) of apsrtc Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963;the petitioner submitted an explanation and thereafter one Mr. Y. Sudhakar gupta, Depot Manager of Vakadu, the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner on 9-11-1995. The petitioner submitted a protest before the enquiry Officer stating that the enquiry cannot be conducted at Tirupathi as that would influence the mind of the other employees. He also submitted that the Regional Manager, who is the head of the Region cannot be examined by a lower officer and therefore he sought appropriate orders. But, however, disregarding his objections an ex parte enquiry was conducted and finally he was issued with a show cause notice by the Regional Manager, Nellore, the 5th Respondent herein calling upon the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service for the charge framed against him and finally the 5th respondent passed orders on 19-8-1996 removing the petitioner from service. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal to the 4th respondent zonal Manager. While confirming the order of removal and taking a lenient view on account of length of service put in by the petitioner and on humanitarian grounds, the petitioner s removal was set aside and he was reverted as Senior Traffic Inspector for 18 months by fixing his pay at the last basic pay drawn by him as Senior Traffic Inspector at the lime of his promotion as Chief Inspector. The said orders of the 5th respondent as well as the modified orders of the 4th respondent are assailed in this Writ Petition.

( 4 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stat