ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.29, dated 06.02.2014 issued by the 5th respondent and seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Engineer and extend all consequential benefits. The writ petition was initially filed challenging the proceedings dated 06.11.2010 and a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on representations of the petitioner, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.29, dated 06.02.2014, whereby the punishment of removal from service besides recovery of Rs.38,69,735/- together with interest at 12% per annum was reconsidered and the petitioner was reduced to the rank of Assistant Engineer to Technical Work Inspector duly placing him in last position in seniority list of lower cadre apart from recovery of the misappropriated amount of Rs.38,69,735/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is limiting the prayer to the extent of the proposed recovery in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.29, dated 06.02.2014.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Work Assistant on 14.07.1987 in the 2nd respondent corporation. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 06.06.2007. It is submitted that the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.107, dated 06.06.2007 laying down guidelines for supervision, monitoring and recommending payments for the construction of houses to the beneficiaries of the 1st respondent corporation.

4. As per the said guidelines the Mandal Housing Officers of every Mandal are incharge of supervising, monitoring and recommending payments to the beneficiaries under Indiramma Housing Programme. It is submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no role in recommending payments, however, on account of a complaint made by the then Member of Parliament, the District Collector, Srikakulam issued instructions to initiate action against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 06.11.2008. Charges were framed on 07.11.2008 and the petitioner was required to submit explanation to the charges within ten days of receipt of the show cause notice. However, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 07.11.2008 even before the explanation was submitted by the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his explanation, however, the Enquiry Officer without following Rule 20 of AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules had submitted his report on 18.03.2009. Another charge sheet dated 08.04.2009 was issued and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.05.2009, another charge sheet dated 07.01.2009 was issued and the report was submitted on 30.04.2009. A fourth charge sheet was issued on 12.02.2009 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.04.2009.

7. The Enquiry Officer without any enquiry and basing on his own alleged enquiry and without examining any witnesses has arrived at a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved. It is submitted that the CCA Rules would mandate the authority to await the reply to show cause notice and after perusing the reply to the charges leveled, the authority concerned can decide whether a case is made out for appointing an Enquiry Officer or not.

8. On the facts of the present case, the Enquiry Officer was appointed on the day when the charges were issued to the petitioner and much prior to the petitioner submitting his explanation. This is evidently resorted to by the respondent authorities to demonstrate that they have diligently followed the dictates of the political leader. The impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2010 were issued by the 1st respondent.

9. The petitioner filed WP.No.30147 of 2010 which was disposed by this Court by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 20.04.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

10. The Counter is filed on behalf of r