ORDER :

T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings in DE No.01/2016, dt.10.08.2017 issued by the respondent, whereunder the petitioner was imposed with penalty of dismissal from service as per Rule 9 of AP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

2. The petitioner while working as Junior Assistant in Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol was placed under suspension by order dt.15.10.2015 issued by the respondent herein. He was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had been remanded to Judicial custody for more than 48 hours in Crime No.138/2015, on the file of Nidadavole Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 354 (A)(D) IPC.

3. Further, the respondent ordered to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem was appointed as Enquiry Officer by proceedings dt.17.06.2016. The Enquiry Officer served the Article of charge to the petitioner and the same is reproduced hereunder:

Article:- “That you (Sri K.Tyaga Raju) while working as Junior Assistant, Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Palakol on 28.08.2015 said to have approached a women by name Eluru Sunitha, W/o. Kiran Kumar in the presence of her aunt, caught hold her hand, misbehaved against her requiring her to satisfy your desire whereupon a complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.138 of 2015 on the file of Nidadavole Police Station was registered and you were arrested and sent to remand on 09.10.2015 and you have been in Judicial custody for morethan 48 hours as per the information given by the Principal junior Civil Judge, Palakol, that your conduct and misbehavior against women within Nidadavole Court premises amounts to gross misconduct and also amounts to moral turpitude which is unbecoming of a Government Servant if proved; that your detention in prison for more than 48 hours with such an allegation is also a serious matter and that conduct of you is spoiling the dignity and discipline of the institution and hence actionable under Rule 3 of Conduct Rules, punishable under APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991.”

4. After service of Article of charge, the petitioner denied the same and pleaded innocence. During the course of inquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P19. After completing the enquiry a report dt.12.08.2016 was submitted to the respondent for taking up further action against the petitioner herein as the charge leveled against him was proved in the enquiry. Thereafter, the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner asking him to submit written explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representation dt.03.09.2016 with a request to reinstate him into service. Thereafter, the respondent issued order dt.25.11.2016, to show cause as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement from service should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted written explanation dt.07.12.2016 to the respondent, requesting to exonerate him from the charge leveled against him. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner and he was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service as the acts committed by the petitioner amounts to moral turpitude.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and supported the order under challenge stating that the same was passed after following the procedure contemplated under law. It was further stated that, the acts committed by the petitioner would fall under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 as amended from time to time and therefore he was dismissed from service.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Perused the record.

8. As per the Article of charge, it was alleged that the petitioner approached a women by name Eluru S