Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedures to ensure fairness, especially in serious allegations of moral turpitude.

ORDER :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the dismissal order vide proceedings No.18440/A3-2/95-12, dated 22.03.2012, issued by the 1^st respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. Heard Sri Siva, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Petitioner was initially appointed in the 2nd respondent’s office in the year 1985, and his services were regularised. Meanwhile, a chargesheet was served on him, and by order dated 24.10.1998, he was placed under suspension on allegations that the petitioner had misbehaved with and molested a girl studying in the 10th standard. For which, he submitted his explanation denying the said allegations. Thereafter, the respondent authorities immediately issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for dismissal from service on 01.08.2000, for which he submitted an explanation denying the allegations levelled against him.

(b) The respondent authorities issued the impugned proceedings of dismissal from service vide Proc. No.18440/C2/3/99-2001, dated 30.04.2001. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal before the Vice Chairman of APREI Society, Hyderabad, which was rejected on 09.07.2001. Later, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19415 of 2003 questioning the dismissal from service on the file of this Court and this Court allowed the Writ Petition on 29.10.2010 and set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2004 as follows:

"...The dismissal of the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 30.04.2001, confirmed in appeal on 09.07.2001 and thereafter in review on 30.08.2001, is accordingly set aside. This shall however not preclude the respondents from initiating action fresh against the petitioner in due accordance with law.

The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs..."

(c) The respondent authorities, even after receipt of the copy of the Court order, did not issue the reinstatement order to the petitioner. However, the respondent authorities initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on 24.01.2011 by sending the articles of charge. The petitioner got issued a contempt notice on 13.12.2010 and filed C.C.No.58 of 2011 against the respondents. Then the respondents have issued the proceedings in Rc.No.18440/A3-2/98-2011 Dt. 03.03.2011 reinstating the petitioner into service and posted at Doulathabad Boys Hostel, Medak District.

(d) The respondent authorities issued a letter dated 23.07.2011, intimating the petitioner about the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and directing him to participate in the enquiry. Thereafter, on 06.08.2011, the Enquiry Officer visited the school and asked the petitioner to submit a written explanation to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the girl had been subjected to molestation. He further stated that the girl’s uncle frequently visited the school during school hours, often seeking permission to meet her and, at times, entering the classrooms. So, the petitioner never allowed him. As such, he bore grudge against the petitioner and foisted a false allegation against him and the principal and staff also made him a scapegoat without informing him of the charge.

(e) Earlier, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in the petitioner’s absence. No notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to substantiate his case. The Enquiry Officer did not pu