THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue anorder, direction or a writ more particularly one of Certiorari and quash the Final Orders in Memo No. G.No./Per/AS/Per/PO/DC-1/1244-C5/2005-15, dt.07.07.2007 imposing punishment of reduction in rank and appellate authorities orders dt.02.08.2008 and orders dt.05.08.2015 of the 1st Respondent declaring that the same as illegal and impermissible in law as ordered earlier by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.8107 and 8108 of 2007, dt.04.08.2015 directing the Respondents to accord all consequential service benefits of restoration of rank and appropriate pay and pension to the Petitioner and to pass…”

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the respondent Corporation, he was issued with a Charge Memo in the year 2005, alleging that he was responsible for incorporating irregular and unauthorized credit journal entries into the computer records in respect of (148) high value service transactions, amount Rs.33.32 lakhs. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and sixteen others, wherein, they were exonerated vide enquiry report dated 20.10.2006. However, the disciplinary authority appointed a second enquiry officer on 22.01.2007, to enquire into the very same charges, and the second enquiry officer submitted his report dated 26.05.2007, holding the charge against the petitioner as proved. Consequently, he was imposed with a punishment of reduction in rank from Upper Division Clerk to Lower Division Clerk, vide memo dated 07.07.2007. However, the petitioner’s appeal and review petitions were also dismissed on 02.08.2008, but on consideration of his mercy petition, the punishment was modified to that of reduction in rank from Upper Division Clerk to Lower Division Clerk for a period of three years, vide orders dated 05.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Patil Shankar Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Discipline and Appeal Rules, for a second enquiry, and the very appointment of a second enquiry officer is itself illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no reasons or a disagreement note has been issued by the disciplinary authority. It is also submitted that the second enquiry report is wholly perfunctory, as it is only a reiteration of the charges and a conclusion that the petitioner’s explanation was not satisfactory, and no discussion on charges, records or evidence is record therein. It is further submitted that some of the charged officers, similarly situated as the petitioner herein, have earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.8107 and 8108 of 2009, which were allowed by this Court vide common order dated 04.08.2015, setting aside the punishment orders dated 24.05.2008 and the rejection orders of the appellate authority dated 19.11.2008. However, though all the seventeen officers, including the petitioner herein, are covered by the same charges and same impermissible second enquiry, the respondents chose to implement the orders of this Court only in respect of those individuals who have filed writ petitions. As such, since the petitioner is also similarly situated with those officers as in W.P.Nos.8107 and 8108 of 2009, he made a representation to respondent No.1 on 12.09.2022, seeking to set aside the punishment orders. However, no action has been taken thereon. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to allow the present writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that serious allegations of misappropriat