GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was employed as Senior field Assistant with the A. P. State cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED) since 1968. While so, in the year 1978, he was working as in-charge, tobacco purchasing centre at Pattikonda village of Kurnool District, the villagers of burjula, Byluppala and Hosur appear to have made certain complaints against the petitioner alleging that he has received illegal gratification from them for rendering official favours. Consequently, a preliminary enquiry appears to have been conducted on 8-2-1979, pursuant to which the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry with effect from 9-2-1979. Initially, one Sri. M. V. Subba Rao, Accounts officer of the respondent appears to have been appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, on 9-10-1979, the Plant Engineer y. Eshwar Reddy was appointed as an enquiry Officer who was substituted with one Sri. K. Narsimhaiah, by the orders of the respondent dated 6-11-1979. Mr. K. Narsimhaiah was again substituted by Sri. B. Srinivas Reddy, Office Manager to act as an Enquiry Officer, by the orders of the Management dated 6-12-1979. By his communication dated 30-12-1979, sri. B. Srinivas Reddy informed the petitioner that he would commence the enquiry and that the petitioner attend the enquiry on 2-1-1980. ( 2 ) WHILE so, on 9-10-1979, this Enquiry officer, during the tenure of Y. Eshwar reddy, communicated to the petitioner, on behalf of the General Manager, a report received from the parties (farmers ). This is claimed by the respondent to constitute a charge-Memo setting out the allegations against the petitioner. ( 3 ) AFTER his appointment as an Enquiry officer and pursuant to his notice dated 30-12-1979 referred to above, Sri B. Srinivas reddy conducted an enquiry on 3-1-1980 and recorded the statements of the villagers and considered the explanation given by the petitioner. He submitted his report dated 14-1-1980. By the proceedings dated 17-4-1980, the Enquiry Officer sri. B. Srinivas Reddy informed the petitioner that on the basis of his report and after examining the statements of the farmers of the villagers Burjula, Byluppala and Hosur, the Management has decided to conduct further enquiry OP the following two allegations and that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as also to offer his explanation in defence. Two allegations set out are as under:"allegation No. 1: Sri Alam Saheb, centre Incharge, MARKFED Tobacco purchasing Centre, Pathikonda has received illegal gratification of rs. 2,000/- from Sri Ramanaiah Chetty of Byluppala village, Pathikonda taluk for issuing of cards to purchase the Tobacco bales of Byluppala village. Allegation No 2: Sri Alam Saheb, centre In-charge has collected amount from the farmers of the villages Hosur, burjula for which cards are said to have been issued without dates. "by this communication, the petitioner has been called upon to attend the enquiry to be held at the aforesaid three villages on the dates and at the times specified therein. By a further letter dated 20-8-1980, the Enquiry officer called upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry on the dates freshly notified. ( 4 ) EVEN while the enquiry pursuant to the notice of the Enquiry Officer dated 17-4-1980 and 20-8-1980 was to be proceeded with, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 8-1-1981 to the petitioner which reads as under:"pending further enquiry into the charges 1 and 2 framed against sri Alam Saheb, SFA/centre Incharge, MARKFED tobacco Purchase centre, Pathikonda, Sri Alam Saheb, sfa is hereby directed to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him, as from the enquiry which was conducted in the reference 3rd cited, it is proved that he is guilty of misconduct for charges 3 to 6 named against him. He is therefore directed to show reasons, if any, as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. His reply should reach the undersigned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter. In case, otherwise it will be presumed and considered that he has no explanation to submit and accordingly the management will be at liberty to take ex parte decision. "demonstrably, the Enquiry Reports dated 14-1-1980,1-5-1980 and 1-9-1980 are reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer sri B. Srinivas Reddy on the basis of complaints of the farmers but without issuing a formal Charge-Memo to the petitioner setting out the satisfaction of the respondent and the species of misconduct alleged against the petitioner and proposing to proceed departmentally against him in respect of such specified species of misconduct. Be that as it may, it is specifically asserted by the petitioner and admitted by the respondent that the so called enquiry reports dated 14-1-1980, 1-5-1980 and 1-9-1980 have not been communicated to the petitioner while calling upon him to show-cause as to why action be not initiated against him in respect of the findings in those enquiry reports. It is also clearly asserted by the petitioner and to which no demurral on behalf of the respondent is recorded, that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity whatsoever to cross-examine any of the witnesses prior to the submission of the enquiry reports mentioned in the communication dated 8-1-1981 above. ( 5 ) THE petitioner by his explanation dated 28-1-1981, submitted in response to the communication dated 8-1-1981 of the respondent, categorically denied the allegations against him. It is, however, to be noticed that in his explanation dated 28-1-1981 , the petitioner is seen to be responding to charges 3 to 6 framed against him. It is, however, not apparent to this court from the record made available, either by the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent, the document in which these charges are contained, since only the complaints of the farmers were communicated to the petitioner in the communication dated 9-10-1979 (adverted to earlier ). There is on record no Charge memo setting out the six species of charges. ( 6 ) THE respondent by the show-cause notice dated 9-3-1981, considered the petitioner s explanation dated 28-1-1981 and found him guilty of all the six charges and directed him to show-cause why he be not terminated from service. In response, the petitioner by his representation dated 16-3-1981 resisted the proposed punishment contending that none of the charges were found substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence and that in respect of charges 1 and 2 there is absolutely no evidence as none of the villagers, on whose complaints these charges are based, have come forward to depose at the enquiry. In respect of other charges 3 to 6, the explanation of the petitioner was that no misconduct is involved and that in the exigencies of service, the delay in recording the cash book and other irregularities, if any, have occurred. In conclusion, the petitioner sought exoneration from all the charges. In respect of other charges 3 to 6, the explanation of the petitioner was that no misconduct is involved and that in the exigencies of service, the delay in recording the cash book and other irregularities, if any, have occurred. In conclusion, the petitioner sought exoneration from all the charges. ( 7 ) BY the proceedings dated 9-4-1981, the respondent having considered the record, imposed on the petitioner a penalty of termination from service with effect from the date of his suspension i. e. , from 9-2-1979. ( 8 ) AFTER receipt of the above orders terminating him from service, the petitioner by his representation dated 23-4-1981 beseeched the respondent to take a sympathetic view of the matter in view of his family circumstances and sought review of the punishment imposed. The petitioner sought substitution of the extreme penalty by any other penalty that the respondent might feel fit to impose in lieu thereof. Thereafter, on 16-9-1981 the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the respondent against the orders of termination. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred W. P. No. 13285 of 1984 before this court assailing the orders of termination dated 9-4-1981. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by the Judgment dated 18-9-1984 directing the Appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a time specified. The Appellate Authority by the orders dated 19-9-1987 communicated a laconic decision of the Committee of persons of the respondent-Management dated 28-8-1987 rejecting the petitioner s appeal. ( 9 ) THE petitioner preferred W. P. No. 15634 of 1987 assailing the orders dated 19-9-1987 rejecting his appeal. By the judgment dated 22-12-1988, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to pass orders afresh in the appeal after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and within two months. By the orders dated 15-11-1989, the appeal was yet again rejected by the appellate Authority. It is alleged by the petitioner that this rejection was equally without considering the contentions raised by him in the appeal and without affording an opportunity of being heard to him, as directed by this Court. ( 10 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that there is no formal instrument communicated by the respondent which answers the description of a charge-memo and in which the charges 3 to 6 are contained. ( 10 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that there is no formal instrument communicated by the respondent which answers the description of a charge-memo and in which the charges 3 to 6 are contained. There is no decission of the respondent-Management, a decision arrived at after prima facie satisfaction as to the misconduct of the petitioner on the basis of the complaints of the villagers, and in which the species of misconduct have been specified, calling for his explanation. ( 11 ) IN this factual scenario, contends the petitioner, the entirety of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent culminating in the orders of termination dated 9-4-1981, is by an irrational procedure even by the liberal standards operating in the arena of disciplinary proceedings. No finding of guilt could be legitimately arrived at or a major penalty imposed on such irrational and procedurally flawed departmental proceedings is the theme song in the writ petition. ( 12 ) IN respect of charges 1 and 2, it is the admitted position and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that there were no witnesses forthcoming at the enquiry. These are the only formal charges levelled against the petitioner as seen from the proceedings of the Enquiry officer Sri B. Srinivas Reddy dated 17-4-1980. The findings as contained in the show-cause notice dated 8-1-1981 and the orders of termination dated 9-4-1981 in respect of charges 1 and 2 have to fall since the findings in respect of these charges are based, admittedly, on no evidence. ( 13 ) THERE is seen from the record of enquiry, that no other charges, answering the description of charges, have been framed on the basis of which the respondent could have come to a conclusion as to the petitioner s guilt. ( 13 ) THERE is seen from the record of enquiry, that no other charges, answering the description of charges, have been framed on the basis of which the respondent could have come to a conclusion as to the petitioner s guilt. ( 14 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the respondent seeks to support the disciplinary proceedings placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in state Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Prabhu dayal Grower wherein considering regulation 68 (2) (iii) of the State Bank of bikaner and Jaipur Officers Service regulations, 1979 requiring the Disciplinary authority to frame definite and distinctive charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer and the articles of charge together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, which shall be communicated in writing to the officer, was considered in the decision. The Supreme court held that the letter of the bank dated 3-4-1980 communicated to the employee though not strictly complying with the regulation nor answers the description of a formal charge-sheet, does nevertheless incorporate and disclose a charge levelled against the employee and therefore constitutes a substantial compliance with the Regulation. To the extent necessary in the case considered by the Supreme Court, the letter of the Bank which has been upheld as broadly conforming the regulation 68 (2) (iii) reads as under:"dear Sir, 1. Disciplinary Action: the following act of misconduct is alleged to have been committed by you during your incumbency as manager of Our Ridmalsar, one man office, during the year 1978: you demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 300. 00 from Shri Maniram for issuing a Demand Draft of rs. 48. 000/- on account of the loan amount sanctioned in favour of shri Maniram and his father Shri Ram rakh Bishnol for purchasing a tractor. 2. You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and apparently failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty quite apart from abusing your official position. The explanation you have so far offered to the Central bureau of Investigation in respect of the aforesaid misconduct are found unsatisfactory- and, therefore, unacceptable to us. 3. List of witnesses by whom and list of documents by which the charges as proposed to be sustained are enclosed along with copies of the relevant statements and documents. 4. The explanation you have so far offered to the Central bureau of Investigation in respect of the aforesaid misconduct are found unsatisfactory- and, therefore, unacceptable to us. 3. List of witnesses by whom and list of documents by which the charges as proposed to be sustained are enclosed along with copies of the relevant statements and documents. 4. Please note that if you do not comply with the rules or the directions issued to you or do not co-operate with the disciplinary authority or bring external or political pressure on any superior authority to further your interests in the proceedings, you will render yourself liable for further disciplinary action. 5. In terms of paragraph 2 of our private and Confidential Circular no. SBBJ/16/65 dated 23-6-1965, please show-cause in writing within 7 days of receipt of this letter why disciplinary action be not taken against you stating clearly whether the charge is admitted by you or denied. Yours faithfully, sd/- managing Director. "in the case on hand, the communication of the respondent dated 9-10-1979, which is pleased to constitute a charge-memo, reads as under:"order in the proceedings 1st cited, sri A. Alain Saheb, SFA MARKFED tobacco Purchasing Centre, pathikonda is placed under suspension. Sri. Y. Eswar Reddy. . Plant engineer, Cattle Feed Mixing Plant, nandyal is appointed as Enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry into the work and conduct of the Assistant. He should submit his report to the development Officer (M) within a fortnight. A copy of the proceedings 1st cited, and report received from the parties is enclosed. Sd/- K. V. S. Gurunadha Rao, general Manager. Sd/- office Manager. "the so-called enclosed report is a complaint of the villagers. On no expansive interpretative principle, is it possible to contend that this letter discloses the satisfaction of the employer as to the misconduct of the petitioner and communicates to him with any reasonable degree of certainty, the specific misconduct on which the respondent seeks to proceed against the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to countenance the plea of the respondent that its letter dated 9-10-1979 constitutes a memorandum of charges duly communicated to the petitioner. ( 15 ) THE principle is too well settled. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings is bad for non-communication of a charge-memo/ charge-sheet. Consequently, all subsequent steps in the disciplinary proceedings would be rendered invalid and would not justify the imposition of a penalty. ( 15 ) THE principle is too well settled. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings is bad for non-communication of a charge-memo/ charge-sheet. Consequently, all subsequent steps in the disciplinary proceedings would be rendered invalid and would not justify the imposition of a penalty. It would be platitudinous to make an expansive analysis of the settled principles. Suffice it to state that this principle has been reiterated in Union of India vs. Dinanaath shantaram. The principles of natural justice also require that a charged employee should be notified of the charges against him and should be given a reasonable opportunity to meet those charges. In the absence of any specific charges, the charged employee would be denied the opportunity to rebut the allegations/charges. ( 16 ) THE enquiry conducted by the respondent, in the considered view of this court, is a totally indisciplined and irrational proceeding and the respondent is seen to have violated every injunction and canon of fair play. ( 17 ) THERE is however another aspect that needs to be considered while arriving at the result of the irrational procedure adopted by the respondent in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. As is apparent from the explanations submitted by the petitioner dated 28-1-1981 and 16-3-1981 to the show-cause notices dated 8-1-1981 and 9-3-1981, the petitioner appears to have comprehended that six charges were framed against him, though as it transpires, there is no formal instrument which even approximately answers the description of a charge-memo in respect of charges 3 to 6. Be that as it may, the total irrational procedure adopted by the respondent in the matter of framing of charges does not appear to have prejudiced the respondent to a degree that disabled him from knowing what the charges against him were. This is clearly apparent from his explanations referred to above whereby he answers the so called charges 3 to 6 in seriatim and detail. This court is, therefore, unable to conclude that the violation of Regulation 70. 2. 0 of the A. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation limited, Hyderabad Regulations which is in language, similar to Regulation 68 (2) (iii) of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur regulations, 1979 which came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, occasioned serious prejudice to the petitioner in the matter of setting out his defence to the charges alleged. It is now settled law that mere violation of principles of natural justice would not result in automatic invalidation of executive action and that real prejudice suffered as a consequence of such violation should also be proved vide M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Aligarh Muslim university vs. Mensoor AH Khan. ( 18 ) IT is seen from the order of termination dated 9-4-1981 that charges 1 and 2 which are the really grave charges alleging serious misconduct of illegal gratification, have not been substantiated at the enquiry. The first charge alleges receipt of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000. 00 from one Ramanaiah Chetty of Byluppala village. Admittedly, Ramanaiah Chetty attended the enquiry on 27-4-1980 on which date the petitioner could not attend due to ill-health and sought adjournment. By the proceedings dated 20-8-1980, in recognition of the petitioner s ill-health, the enquiry was rescheduled to 28-8-1980 and 29-8-1980. On the said dates of enquiry, Ramanaiah chetty did not turn up and thus the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining him. There being no other evidence, the finding of the Enquiry officer on this charge needs to be characterized as a finding without any evidence and thus non est. The second charge is that the petitioner collected amounts from the farmers of villages of hosur and Burjula and for which cards are said to have been issued without dates. The petitioner has been exonerated of this charge. ( 19 ) THE other charges 3 to 6 as understood by the petitioner relate to payments made to the ryots out of turn, failure to record cash book in time and absence of the petitioner without prior application of leave and charge 6 relates to payment of lower amount to an N. M. R. clerk against a voucher obtained for higher amount. In respect of this charge, which is also serious namely payment of lower amount, the employee who was alleged to have been paid lower amount has not been examined at the enquiry and the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Despite any evidence on the point, the petitioner has been found guilty of this charge too on the basis of surmises and conjectures that even if called the NMR employee would not present himself at the enquiry. Charge No. 6 is thus not validly established. Despite any evidence on the point, the petitioner has been found guilty of this charge too on the basis of surmises and conjectures that even if called the NMR employee would not present himself at the enquiry. Charge No. 6 is thus not validly established. The other charges 3 to 5 allege minor species of misconduct which amount to mere irregularities. ( 20 ) AS a culmination of charges 3 to 5 alone being validly found against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the penalty of termination from service is irrational and disproportionate to the proved misconduct. ( 21 ) IT is recorded by the appellate authority that the petitioner obviously managed with the witnesses not to attend the enquiry and as there is no reason for the witnesses not to attend the enquiry, the charges were held proved on the material evidence. This reasoning, besides being wholly, is based on wild conjecture and no facts. On such speculative reasoning, the appellate authority confirmed the order of primary authority. ( 22 ) IN view of the conclusion of this court that the extreme penalty of termination from service is irrational and disproportionate, on the conclusions of guilt in respect of charges 3 to 5, the normal consequence would be a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with liberty to the respondent to consider an appropriate alternative penalty commensurate with the misconduct on charges 3 to 5. But such conventional disposition of the case may not ensure to the equities of the case as the petitioner is out of active service since 1979, the date on which he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. 21 years have passed and to put the petitioner back into service at this point of time would occasion serious prejudice to public interest. The petitioner would also be incapacitated from extending a reasonable quality of service, having been out of the arena of the respondent organization. It would be conducive neither to the petitioner nor to the respondent to deal with the situatioin on classical parameters. There is need to construct and administer a pragmatic solution to the peculiar fact situation of this case. It would be conducive neither to the petitioner nor to the respondent to deal with the situatioin on classical parameters. There is need to construct and administer a pragmatic solution to the peculiar fact situation of this case. ( 23 ) THIS Court since January, 2000 has on a number of occasions adjourned the matter from time to time to ascertain whether the respondents would suggest an harmonious administrative solution in the event the punishment was to be set aside as, prima facie appeared to be the consequence of the legal position, when the matter was initially heard. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned on various dates, viz. , 20-1-2000, 22-1-2000, 1-2-2000, 15-2-2000, 3-3-2000, 6-3-2000, 23-8-2000, 29-8-2000, 20-11-2000, 22-11-2000, 24-11-2000, 27-11-2000, 4^12-2000, 11-12-2000, 21-12-2000 and also to-day. It is represented by Sri Vilas afzalpurkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the Managing Director of the first respondent has addressed the State government for appropriate directions as to the manner in which the petitioner should be dealt with if the enquiry were to be found invalid and yet the State has not responded to the request of the Managing director of the first respondent. ( 24 ) IN the circumstances above, having regard to the analysis of the facts and the legal position, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-4-1981 imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of termination from service, as also the orders of the appellate authority dated 15-11-1989 are set aside. Consequence of such invalidation of the primary and appellate disciplinary proceedings would normally have to be reinstatement of the petitioner to service and as the disciplinary orders have been invalidated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice with liberty accorded to the respondents to continue with the department proceedings. But having regard to the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated about two decades ago and the petitioner has been out of active service since 9-2-1979 when he was placed under suspension and out of service altogether since 9-4-1981, the date of his termination, this Court considers it inappropriate to direct such effectuation of the orders of the invalidation of the departmental proceedings. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner 75 per cent of the salary and allowances due to him from 9-4-1981 till today i. e. , 26-12-2000 and the entirety of the subsistence allowance to 50 per cent of the salary for the period from 9-2-1979 to 9-4-1981, (i. e. , from the date of commencement of the orders of suspension pending enquiry, till the date of termination from service), after taking credit for any subsistence allowance already paid for the said period. The respondents shall pay the said amounts to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Payment of the aforesaid amounts shall constitute full and final severance of all relationships between the petitioner and the first respondent and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any other claims in whatever regard in respect of the services rendered by him to the first respondent. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to gratuity due to him in accordance with the service rules applicable since the order of termination passed against him has been set aside by this Court above. ( 25 ) THE writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.