ORDER :

The petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Memo No.CGH/HRD/DC/PO-III/F.No.525/06.D.No.15/07 dated 10.01.2007 of 2nd respondent rejecting the representation dated 09.08.2006 of the petitioner and the proceedings in Memo No.HRD/DC/PO-III/F.42/02/D.No.2103/04 dated 11.11.2004 of 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal dated 29.07.2004 filed by the petitioner and also the proceedings in Memo No.SE/0/RJY/ADM/U3/D.No.300/04 dated 15.06.2004 of the 3rd respondent directing the petitioner from removal of service as LDC/Revenue Cashier and to declare the aforesaid proceedings as illegal, improper, violative of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Service Rules and Regulations and Government Orders dated 27.10.1977 and M.S.No.98 dated 31.08.2002 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. 15.11.2001 with all back wages and consequential benefits and to pass such other orders which the Court deems fit.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) The petitioner was working as LDC and looking after the post of Revenue Cashier at Kothapalli Village under the control of ERO Office, Pithapuram. On 15.11.2001, the petitioner was suspended by 3rd respondent on the allegation that he was involved in misappropriation of corporation funds relating to the A.C.D. collections and tampering of records, pending disciplinary proceedings. Apart from the departmental proceedings, the Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Pithapuram gave a complaint to the police of U.Kothapalli Police Station on 09.12.2001 alleging the misappropriation of funds of the Corporation by the petitioner by falsification of accounts. The S.H.O. registered a case in Cr.No.72/2001 under Sections 409 & 477(A) of IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet, which was accepted and registered as C.C.No.247/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram. After full-fledged trial, the said Court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 19.04.2006.

(b) In the meanwhile, on 04.01.2002, the 3rd respondent appointed the Divisional Engineer (Enquiries), Visakhapatnam as Enquiry Officer and conducted the departmental proceedings against the petitioner with regard to the allegation of misappropriation of funds. Altogether six charges were framed against the petitioner on 10.05.2002. The petitioner gave reply. The Enquiry Officer being not satisfied with the reply, conducted departmental enquiry proceedings and gave a report to the disciplinary authorities opining that all the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Basing on the said enquiry report dated 27.02.2003, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner to furnish his explanation as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed on him. On 11.12.2003, the petitioner submitted explanation to 3rd respondent and requested him to withdraw the proposed punishment of “removal from service”. However, the 3rd respondent without considering the explanation of petitioner, passed the order in a mechanical manner and imposed the punishment of “removal from service” vide Memo No.SE/O/FJY/ADM/U3/D.No.300/04 dated 15.06.2004. An opportunity to file an appeal was given as per the impugned dismissal order. The petitioner filed an appeal before 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent has rejected the appeal by confirming the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by 3rd respondent. While so, after passing of the judgment on 19.04.2006 in C.C.No.247/2002 acquitting the petitioner, he made a representation to 1st respondent to consider his case sympathetically and to set aside the order of 2nd respondent dated 11.11.2004 dismissing him from the service and to reinstate him with back wages. However, the 1st respondent vide Memo No.CGM/HRD/DC/PO-III/F.No.525/06.D.No.15/07 dated