Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The present writ appeal is filed assailing the order dated 30.12.2009 in W.P. No. 7238 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the punishment imposed on the 1st respondent herein by the appellant, Anakapally Rural Electrical Cooperative Society Limited. ("the Society" for brevity.)

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a society registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, with an all pervasive control exercised by the State, thus rendering itself an instrumentality of State. The 1st respondent herein was originally appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 18.11.1974. He is said to have completed more than three decades of service by the time of filing of the writ petition. He was, in course of time, promoted as Administrative Officer from the category of Manager on 18.05.1999.

3. While he was the Manager, he was also required to act on full time, temporarily though, as Managing Director of the appellant Society, ever since the then Managing Director had been placed under suspension on the allegation of certain departmental irregularities. In the month of July, 2001, when the first respondent was working as an Administrative Officer, on certain complaints made against him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant Society. On 01.08.2001, he was placed under suspension, and later on 10.08.2001, an enquiry officer, incidentally a practicing advocate of the region, was appointed by the Society.

4. Questioning his suspension, the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 16268 of 2001 before this Court, but it was dismissed on 20.08.2001, with a direction to the appellant to complete the enquiry within three months. The record reveals that, yet again, on 23.08.2001, the 1st respondent made a representation to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad, seeking his intervention in the matter, but to no avail. Eventually on 19.09.2001, the enquiry officer issued a charge memo with six charges, calling for the explanation of the 1st respondent. On 22.09.2001, the 1st respondent submitted a representation to the Managing Director of the RESCO, firstly denying all the articles of the charges, and secondly seeking further time till 15.10.2001 for submitting a detailed explanation. It is to be seen that on 26.09.2001, the 1st respondent made another representation to the Managing Director seeking postponement of the enquiry till a response was received from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad, since he had already made a representation to the said authority ventilating his grievance on various aspects, including that of appointing a practicing advocate, an outsider, as the enquiry officer.

5. The record further reveals that since there was neither judicial intervention nor any directions from the statutory authorities interdicting the departmental enquiry, the 1st respondent, eventually, submitted his explanation on 03.11.2001 to the Managing Director of the appellant Society, rather than to the enquiry officer. Having ostensibly not taken cognizance of the explanation submitted to the Managing Director, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry on 20.10.2001, recorded the statements of certain witnesses and eventually submitted his report on 09.11.2001 to the appellant Society, holding that all the charges framed against the 1st respondent were proved.

6. On receipt of the enquiry report, the Managing Director of the appellant Society issued a show-cause notice dated 09.07.2002 to the 1st respondent why he should not be removed from service. Though detailed explanations are said to have been submitted by the 1st respondent on 19.07.2002 and 20.08.2002, the appellant Society, concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer, thus rejecting the explanation of the 1st respondent, imposed