A second inquiry into the same charges is impermissible without new evidence, and principles of natural justice must be upheld during departmental inquiries.

JUDGMENT :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32623 of 2017 dated 03.05.2024.

2. Heard Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellant on record, and Sri S.Bopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the appellant was appointed as Watchman in the year 1986 and was posted at APSWRS/Junior College (Girls), Mattampally, Nalgonda District, and he was transferred to APSWRS (Girls), G.V.Gudem, Nalgonda in the month of January 1999.

4. An incident occurred on the intervening night of 31.08.2000/ 01.09.2000, when an unidentified person, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, entered the Kiran Bedi House, a girls’ dormitory, and attempted to molest a girl studying in the 8th class. However, when the other two girls raised an alarm, the person fled from the scene, i.e., the girls’ dormitory.

5. The students narrated the incident to the then Principal, i.e., respondent No.3, on 01.09.2000 and requested to take action. Accordingly, on the same day, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, I Town P.S. Nalgonda, requesting to take action and specifically mentioning that an unknown person entered and threatened the girl students, later, after raising the alarm, the person fled from the scene.

6. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 04.09.2000, the 3rd respondent surrendered the services of the appellant to the Principal of A.P. Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College (Girls), Nakrekal for further posting. Following this, the 3rd respondent has informed the Secretary, Telangana Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, i.e., Respondent no. 2, specifying the facts and requesting a proper inquiry.

7. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint against the appellant with the 2^nd respondent, upon the same, the 2^nd respondent placed the appellant under suspension pending inquiry vide proceedings dated 05.09.2000. Later, the said suspension order was modified on 21.09.2000, and the suspension was extended till the completion of the inquiry.

8. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 09.11.2000, appointed an inquiry officer. The said inquiry officer issued a memo to 3rd respondent asking her to attend the inquiry, in which the students were not called for the inquiry, but the 3^rd respondent, on her own, called them; however, the students were not examined, and the inquiry report was submitted. Following this, the 2nd respondent vide proceeding dated 11.01.2001 dismissed the appellant from service with immediate effect.

9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellant filed W.P.No.2597 of 2001 and the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.11.2010 was pleased to set aside the dismissal order by observing that the procedure followed by the inquiry officer is contrary to the regulations and no procedure was followed during the inquiry except filing of the inquiry report by the officer and further observed that the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 08.12.2000, however, the same was not even placed on record. learned single Judge, however, gave liberty to the respondents to conduct inquiry strictly in accordance with the regulations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, with respect to reinstatement or suspension of the appellant.

10. Pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.1