HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2015 OF 2020

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition has a checkered history.

Petitioner, on selection by APPSC, was appointed as Statistician in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddakotapally Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District on 01.02.1989. His date of birth was recorded in the Service Register as 17.12.1962. He was subsequently, issued charge memo dated 31.07.2019 with two charges; Charge No.1 - he furnished different dates of birth to different authorities and Charge No.2 is he failed to comply with orders of the superior authorities who directed him to submit relevant original documents in support of his actual date of birth. Petitioner is stated to have submitted representation dated 13.08.2019 seeking copies of certain documents. The 2^nd respondent provided some documents by memo dated 16.08.2019 and further informed that the documents which are found to be relevant are only supplied. Petitioner hence, submitted another representation dated 19.08.2019 to supply him the relevant documents to submit defense statement.

1.1. Respondent No. 2 issued proceedings No. 3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 22.08.2019 appointing an Inquiring Officer. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18527 of 2019 alleging that without considering his representation dated 19.08.2019, the 2nd respondent appointed the Inquiring Officer. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 27.08.2019 inter alia granting liberty to petitioner to file written statement of defense and the proceedings appointing Inquiry Officer was kept in abeyance till then.

1.2. Thereafter, petitioner submitted preliminary defense statement on 04.10.2019. However, the 2nd respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer vide proceedings No. 3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 19.10.2019. The Inquiry Officer issued notices of different dates and petitioner attended the inquiry and pleaded innocence and requested the Inquiry Officer to permit him peruse relevant files and also to cross-examine the Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer furnished petitioner copies of documents which were marked. Petitioner submitted another representation to the Inquiry Officer and to Respondent No.2 dated 18.12.2019 seeking certain documents stating that his date of birth is 17.12.1962 and the other dates of his birth are false. The Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 18.12.2019 without considering his request, alleges petitioner.

1.3. It is stated, a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was furnished by Respondent No.2 to petitioner vide memo dated 27.12.2019. Then, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 241 of

2020 to set aside the memo dated 27.12.2019. This Writ Petition was disposed of on 06.01.2020 directing petitioner to submit his objections to the Inquiry Officer's report pursuant to memo dated 27.12.2019 and upon such submission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the same. Petitioner submitted his representation dated 13.01.2020 informing that he would submit his defense to the Inquiry Officer's report after receipt of a copy of the order in Writ Petition No. 241 of 2020 dated 06.01.2020. However, the 2^nd respondent by the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 imposed penalty of dismissal from service on petitioner.

2. The learned Single Judge, earlier, by order dated 07.07.2023 allowed this Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 and directed respondents to process pension papers of petitioner and release retirement benefits within six weeks. Respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 956 of 2023, reiterating its arguments submitted before the learned Single Judge. The learned Division Bench by order dated 29.09.2023 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It held that the learned Single Judge instead of setting aside the impugned order of dismissal, ought to have remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to decide whether order of dismissal is as per CCA Rules or contrary to G.O.Ms.