(per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice

B. Prakash Rao)

Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who has been working as an Executive Officer under the first respondent, files this writ petition, inter alia, seeking a mandamus declaring the dismissal proceedings dated 3-10-2002 as violative under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being in the teeth of the mandate as per Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services Code (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (‘the Rules’ for brevity) for want of enquiry and consequently seeking to set aside the proceedings dated 3-10-2002 issued by the first respondent dismissing the appellant from service and the order dated 7-5-2004 in O.A. No.9816 of 2002 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (‘APAT’ for brevity) dismissing the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and for issuance of other consequential directions.

3. Having regard to the substantial plea taken in the writ petition as to the want of enquiry as provided under Rule 20 of the Rules, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointedd in April 1970 as Executive Officer Gr.III and subsequently, he was kept in-charge of Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple, Gundugolanu from 4-12-1992 to 6-7-1998. On certain allegations in regard to misappropriationn of the amounts belonging to the Temple, proceedings have been initiated against the Chairman of the Institution, but ultimately, the Chairman had paid the amount of Rs.1,31,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty one thousand only) on 6-2-1995. Even the criminal case launched against the said Chairman in C.C.No.3 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru ended in acquittal. The case of the petitioner is that, thereafter, the present proceedings for disciplinary action were initiated against him by issuing a charge-memo on 10-9-1999 with self same allegations. The petitioner filed a detailed explanation on 16-3-2000 to the said chargememo denying the entire allegations. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the flat denial, no enquiry was conducted in his presence by giving any notice or opportunity to him. However, on the basis of the said charge-memo and the explanation filed by the petitioner alone, the Enquiry Officer straight away submitted a report on 25-11-2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a final show-cause notice on 16-1-2001, against which the petitioner filed an explanation on 20-1-2001, once again denying the entire charge. This was simply followed up by the dismissal proceedings dated 3-10-2002. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached APAT through O.A.No.9816 of 2002, which was dismissed. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, apart from contending on merits and the correctness of the allegations, principally submits that subsequent to filling of petitioner’s explanation to the charge-memo dated 10-9-1999, the Enquiry Officer did not conduct any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules and therefore, the dismissal proceedings are totally vitiated. Evidently, he has filed a report dated 25-11-2000 purely on the basis of the charge-memo dated 10-9-1999 and explanation dated 16-3-2000. Subsequently, show-cause notice dated 16-1-2001 was issued to which the petitioner filed explanation dated 20-1-2001 but all those resulted in major punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the services. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner, it mandates on the part of the respondents to conduct an enquiry after giving due notice and opportunity, without which, the entire proceedings would be illegal.

5. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing on behalf