1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 01.12.2016 in W.P. No. 15443 of 2014 by the respondent in the said writ petition.

2. We have heard Mr. K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellants and Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent is working as Head Constable in the Ministry of CRPF, Service Record Section, G.C., CRPF, Hyderabad. He was being entrusted with the job of Assistant Cashier, whenever it was necessary. A charge memo was issued to him on 09.04.2014, framing a single charge to the effect that the respondent failed in preparation of remittance particulars to ensure proper and correct disbursement of the amount to the actual payee after issuing bank remittance particulars of each payee from records and that as a result of the same, one U. Durga Prasada Rao embezzled an amount of Rs. 14,83,104/- by tampering the bank remittance particulars of 10 personnel and deposited amounts in the account of his wife Smt. U. Sarada. The respondent has submitted his explanation to Appellant No. 4, who is the Disciplinary Authority, on 19.04.2014. After considering the explanation of the respondent, Appellant No. 4 has issued office order dated 08.05.2014 proposing to hold a departmental enquiry and appointed Appellant No. 5, as Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the charge framed against the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed WP No. 15443 of 2014 seeking to quash the charge memo dated 09.04.2014 and the office order dated 08.05.2014 appointing Appellant No. 5 as Enquiry Officer. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge.

4. In the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has referred to two contentions (rather grounds) on which the respondent filed the writ petition as under:

"(a) The Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad (4th respondent) is the Head of Institution and he signed all the documents and bank registers but he was not issued any charge memo by 3rd respondent.

(b) As per Rule l27(d) (i) of CRPF Rules, if two or more employees are involved in any enquiry, then a joint enquiry has to be conducted and the petitioner had requested 5th respondent-Enquiry Officer to do so on 19.04.2014 itself but the latter has not taken any action."

5. A perusal of the order of the learned single Judge shows that he has not dealt with either of the above two re-produced contentions. However, the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition on the sole ground of bias. While arriving at the finding on bias, the learned single Judge referred to certain averments in the counter-affidavit of Appellant No. 3, who incidentally happens to be the Appellate Authority and concluded that being the Appellate Authority, Appellant No. 3 has termed the respondent herein as guilty even while the enquiry is pending and that the same amounts to pre-judging the issue thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. Though the learned single Judge has not referred to any particular paragraph in the counter-affidavit in concluding that Appellant No. 3 exhibited his biased mind, Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, has invited our attention to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit filed by Appellant No. 3, which read as under:

"12. I state that the above petitioner failed in preparation of disbursement sheet correctly and not ensured correct disbursement of amount to the actual payee. By taking advantage of negligence of the petitioner No. 931130377 Constable/General Duty U. Durga Prasad Rao of this Group Centre, who was performing the duties in the cash section as helping hand to the cashier and Assistant Cashier, fraudulently tampered transaction of Government money to the tune of Rs. 66,79,155/- (Rupees Sixty six lakhs seventy nine thousand one hundred fifty five) only depositing General provident Fund/Group Insurance Scheme/final payments/Death-cum-retirement gratuity, supplementary traveling all