IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and proper inquiry procedures in disciplinary actions against employees.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

“……to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to the Proceedings in Roc No 2656/2010/C1 dated 03.1. 2014 issued by the 2nd respondent examine the same and set aside the said proceedings after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice settled principles of service jurisprudence and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of Record Assistant with all attendant benefits by considering his representation dated 02.08.2019…..”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in Municipal Department as Record Assistant on compassionate grounds on 17.02.1995 and working as such to the utmost satisfaction of petitioner's superiors. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to E-Seva Centre at Gudivada w.e.f. 30.08.2003 as Accountant. While he was working on deputation in E-Seva, he was placed under suspension on 16.08.2007 issued by the 5th respondent herein on the ground of misappropriation of amounts of E.Seva and 4 charges were levelled against the petitioner to that effect. While so, again the 5th respondent has issued a Show Cause Notice in Roc.No.2656/2010/C1, dated 09.8.2011 to petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service by imposing Major Penalty under Rule-9 of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991 and as per G.O.Ms.No.25, GA (Ser-C) Dept., dated 03.02.2004 for the alleged irregularities committed by him at E-Seva Centre, Rajendranagar Branch, Gudivada. Then, petitioner sought for time for giving his explanation to the said show cause notice. The 5th respondent had filed VMA No.2148/2011 in O.A. No.7757/2011 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to vacate the Interim Orders passed in O.A.No.7757/2011 dated 09.08.2011. Thereafter, the said OA was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, by Order, dated 10.09.2014, directing that the departmental enquiry against petitioner in the O.A., need not wait till the conclusion of criminal trial before the criminal court. thereafter, the 2nd respondent arbitrarily removed petitioner from the post of Record Assistant by impugned Proceedings Roc.No.2656/2010/C1, dated in 03.12.2014 without appreciating facts and improper enquiry and without taking into consideration of available records and non application of mind and without giving him opportunity of hearing and without calling him to submit his comprehensive explanation which act is violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.5 denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated that the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 03.12.2014 dismissed the Petitioner from service under the allegation was misappropriation of e-seva funds while working as Record Assistant and Accountant of e-seva. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the Respondent Authorities are not consider his representation dated 02.08.2019 requesting to reinstate into service as Record Assistant in this respondent Municipality. As his request the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstate into service because of acquittal in Criminal Cases. The petitioner never deposited remaining amount which was due of misappropriated amount. The Respondents are conducted enquiry in fair manner and charges were proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary action initiated against the Petitioner by giving the all opportunities and following the prescribed procedure under rule-9 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules-1991 on 03.12.2014. It is stated that the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement even though he was acquittal from Criminal