ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"........to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement with immediate effect by way of show cause notice without following due process of law vide Proceedings No. 1852/C2/2016, dated 25.01.2021, as illegal, capricious, without jurisdiction and contrary to A.P.C.C.A. Rules and violative of principles of natural justice and as such liable to be set aside the same in the interest of justice and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner with all wages and consequential benefits from 06.05.2016 forthwith."

2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 and presently working as Assistant Professor in the Government Homoeo Medical College, Kadapa District. In the year 2016 certain allegations were made against him alleging that he is maintaining a Girls Hostel to the students, calling the girl students to his house, he was suspended from service vide proceedings dated 06.05.2016, an enquiry was initiated against him, the inquiry officer conducted discreet enquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner are not proved vide enquiry report dated 08.03.2017. The then Commissioner forwarded the said report to the Government and after considering the report as the charges were not proved against the petitioner, the petitioner was reinstated into service and transferred from Rajahmundry to Kadapa vide proceedings dated 11.07.2017 and presently he is working at Kadapa.

3. While the matter stood thus, the impugned proceedings were issued vide Procdgs. No. 1852/C2/2016, dated 25.01.2021, wherein it was concluded that the petitioner may be retired from service compulsorily with immediate effect which is contrary to law and without following due process of law, same is illegal, arbitrary and therefore requested this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings, while declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary.

4. During the course of hearing, Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceeding impugned in this writ petition is not a show cause notice and it is only an order, compulsorily retiring this petitioner from service with immediate effect, since no explanation is called from the petitioner and requested to set aside the said proceedings, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-III contended that a show cause notice cannot be challenged before this Court, since it is not an order and apart from that it can be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner can be permitted to submit his written representation if he is found guilty of the charges and the respondents will consider the written representation in terms of A.P.C.C.A. Rules, 1991 and requested to issue appropriate direction to the respondents.

6. As seen from the material available on record, more particularly the contents of show cause notice, the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, but the copy of the enquiry report is not placed on record, however, a show cause notice was issued proposing to impose major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect, which is a major penalty under Rule 9 of A.P.C.C.A. Rules, 1991. In fact, no written representation is called for from the petitioner and thereby it is contrary to Rule 20 of A.P.C.C.A. Rules, 1991.

7. Whenever a Government servant is found guilty of departmental enquiry initiated against him, the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary is to issue a show cause a copy of the enquiry report and call for written representation by the employee for imposing either major or minor penalty. But, in the present case, the no