1. The petitioner who was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of penalty.

2. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the Registry.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Examiner in the year 1993 and was promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1998. When he was working as Junior Assistant in the First Additional Junior Civil Judges Court, Bhimavaram, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 16.9.2008, alleging that he had created four fake orders by forging the initials of the Presiding Officer, on the withdrawal petitions arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The incident referred to in the show cause notice allegedly happened when the petitioner was working in Eluru.

4. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, a charge memo dated 04.10.2008 was issued under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo on 23.10.2008. But an enquiry followed and the petitioner made a request to permit him to engage an Advocate to defend himself and also to permit him to peruse the records. While rejecting his request for permission to engage a counsel, the petitioner was permitted to take the assistance of any Government servant and he was also directed to approach the First Additional District Judge for permission to scrutinise the records. It is relevant to note that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner only on a complaint given by the First Additional District Judge, to whom the petitioner was referred for the perusal of the records.

5. Aggrieved by such an action, the petitioner made a representation on 21.11.2008 to the Registry of the High Court. But the Registrar (Vigilance), by an office memorandum dated 25.11.2008 directed the petitioner to approach the District Judge, if he had any grievance in this regard.

6. In the enquiry, a Senior Assistant working in the office of the First Additional District Judge was examined as PW-1, the First Additional District Judge was examined as PW-2 and a Stenographer working in the office of the First Additional District Judge was examined as PW-3. The petitioner examined a Junior Assistant working in the office of the First Additional District Judge as DW-1.

7. When the enquiry was in progress, the petitioner was served with another charge memo dated 10.12.2008. The Enquiry Officer clubbed the said charge memo also in the same proceedings.

8. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 23.12.2008 holding the charges proved. The enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner made his representation. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 06.01.2009 was issued proposing a penalty. The petitioner submitted a representation, after which the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 17.01.2009 imposing the penalty of removal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 04.02.2009 was partly allowed by the proceedings of the High Court dated 04.12.2009, modifying the penalty of removal from service, into one of compulsory retirement. It is against the said order that the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

9. Assailing the entire disciplinary proceedings which culminated in the order of removal from service, but which got modified in appeal into one of compulsory retirement, it is contended by Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the entire proceedings were vitiated by the infraction of statutory rules and that therefore they are liable to be set at naught. The list of procedural irregularities, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is:

“(i) The charge memo dated 04.10.2008 was not accompanied by the copies of the document