C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by order, dated 03.8.2017, in Original Application No.1254 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal), the applicant therein filed this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is a Forest Section Officer under suspension. A charge memo was issued to him on 29.10.2016 by respondent No.1. Questioning the charge memo, he filed the afore-mentioned O.A. The main plank on which the petitioner has filed the afore-mentioned O.A. was that respondent No.1-disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to appoint an Inquiry Officer even before receiving the written statement of defence from him and that his action is contrary to Rule-20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short "the Rules).

3. It was the pleaded case of the respondents before the Tribunal that on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner made a representation, dated 11.11.2016, to the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Rajampet, requesting for permission to peruse the record and that the said Officer has, accordingly, granted permission. It was their further pleaded case that on perusal of the record, the petitioner has informed the personnel that all those records are available with him and by saying so, he declined to give a certificate of perusal of record; that as he has not submitted his written statement of defence, a notice was issued to him on 20.02.2017 by respondent No.1 asking him to submit his written statement of defence; and that as he has not responded to the said notice, respondent No.1 appointed the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Kodur as Inquiry Officer and the Forest Range Officer, Sanipaya Range as Presenting Officer, by proceedings, vide Proc.No.776/2016/S4, dated 13.3.2017.

4. The Tribunal disagreed with the plea of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority cannot appoint an enquiry officer before receiving the written statement of defence. Alternatively, it has concluded that though the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence, he failed to do so and therefore, respondent No.1 was justified in appointing an Inquiry Officer. While dismissing the said O.A., the Tribunal, however, directed that the petitioner shall be supplied with the copies of the documents relevant in the inquiry as sought for by him, and as undertaken by the respondents themselves in paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit, and receive the written statement of defence from the petitioner during the inquiry.

5. We have heard Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services (Andhra Pradesh).

6. As regards the findings of the Tribunal on the interpretation of Rule-20 of the Rules, Sub-Rules-(3) to (6) of the said Rule to the extent they are relevant are reproduced hereunder:-

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this Rule and Rule-21, the Disciplinary Authority or the Controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinary Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up-

(i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge.

(ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-

(a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant.

(b) A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

(4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the article of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and copies of the said docume