ORDER

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus questioning the proceeding dated 5.9.2018 and the consequential proceedings dated 22.5.2018 and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, revision of pay and increments etc.

2. The petitioner before this Court was working with respondent No. 2 as a Senior Seed Certification Officer. He was removed from Office on the basis of a major penalty that was imposed. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. This Court has heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondent No. 1 and Sri P. Durga Prasad appearing for respondent No. 2.

4. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Seeds Officer in April, 1985. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Seed Certification Officer in 2006. In 2012, he was posted at Kurnool. For an alleged dereliction of duty, he was issued a charge memo, based on a preliminary enquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation and an order of removal was passed against him in February, 2018. The petitioner challenged the same before the combined High Court in WP No. 11385 of 2018. The order of removal was set aside. Thereafter, another order of removal was passed in 2018. The petitioner challenged the same by filing WP No. 22187 of 2018. The Hon'ble High Court directed him to file a statutory appeal. The appeal was filed raising various grounds. On 5.9.2018, the appeal was dismissed. Questioning the same and the consequent proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the enquiry is inherently vitiated because a copy of the preliminary enquiry was not furnished to the petitioner. He also submits that the same is not a part of the record and that therefore, he argues that the basis of the charge is not established before the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, he states that the entire enquiry is bad in law. He also submits that the petitioner's duty as Certification Officer, Kurnool, his job was to just look into the quality of the seeds; all other matters relating to procurement are entrusted to other Officers. Learned Counsel argues that there is absolutely no documentary or other evidence to show that the quality of seeds that were alleged are supplied by the petitioner and that they caused loss to the respondents. He submits that even though the Evidence Act is not applicable in its full vigor, the provisions of the Act do apply and that the respondent-employer, who has charge-sheeted the petitioner was under an obligation to prove that case. Learned Counsel submits that there is no shred of evidence to prove the case even after the petitioner denied the charge. Lastly, he submits that the same Enquiry Officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, was also appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Therefore, he submits that the enquiry is flawed. He relies upon five cases and argued that the entire proceedings should be set aside and the petitioner (which was on the verge of retirement) when terminated who has rendered distinguished service so far should be reinstated with full wages and all attendant benefits.

6. In reply to this, Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that many of the issues that are raised were not urged during the course of the enquiry. He submits that the petitioner never asked for a copy of the preliminary report. He argues that mere non-furnishing of the report will not vitiate the entire enquiry. It is his submission that this Court should not enter into the area of quality of evidence that has been introduced in this case and that the standard of proof is not the same as in the civil Court let alone in a criminal Court. He points out that the available