A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner while working as A. A. O. large scale defalcation of amounts more than Rs. 4,30,000. 00 was noticed by the board which was with the connivance of several others. In view of the same, the board by proceedings dated 08-01-1987 appointed Enquiry Officer to probe into the matter. The Enquiry Officer issued Charge memo on 25-08-1987 framing 7 charges to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25-10-1987. The Enquiry officer after conducting detailed enquiry into the charges submitted his report to the board stating that the charges are established and recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from service, besides recovery of Rs. 4,33,440. 16 Ps. The chairman of the Board, who ordered departmental enquiry, on examination of the report accepted the finding of the enquiry Officer and also provisionally concluded dismissal of the petitioner from service and issued show-cause notice on 09-08-1988 duly supplying report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 17-09-1988 pointing out several irregularities numbering 9 with regard to conducting enquiry by the enquiry officer and requested to set aside the Enquiry officer s report as no opportunity was given to him to defend himself in the regular enquiry. The 1st respondent after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner discussed each point by giving reasons and decided to confirm the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner besides recovery of Rs. 4,32,440. 16ps. Accordingly, the petitioner was removed from service by the impugned order dated 04-06-1990. Questioning the same present writ petition is filed contending that the 1st respondent, who is the appellate authority under the apseb Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short the Regulations ) framed by the board, himself passed the dismissal order depriving the petitioner s right to file an appeal, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the alleged defalcation was also ended in acquittal. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and not supplied the material and not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Though the petitioner in his explanation pointed out the above irregularities, in the impugned order the same were not properly adverted which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and not supplied the material and not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Though the petitioner in his explanation pointed out the above irregularities, in the impugned order the same were not properly adverted which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner has to be reinstated into service. ( 2 ) IN response to Rule Nisi, the Board filed a detailed counter stating that consequent on the outbreak of fire in E. R. O. , nandigama on 15-02-1986 and 16-02-1986 certain records were destroyed. It came to light that Board s funds amounting to lakhs of rupees were defalcated from 1/82 to 2/86 by some of the employees and to suppress the evidence, the records of the ERO were gutted by some vested interests. The petitioner and some other employees were kept under suspension pending enquiry into the grave charges. A police case was also filed and the Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment held that it is a clear case of mischief by fire, in gutting official records as evidenced by the Chemical Examiner s report, but acquitted the accused persons for lack of evidence. A departmental enquiry was ordered by appointing sri B. Koti Reddy, Senior Accounts Officer as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of defalcation of Board s funds against the petitioner and others. The enquiry Officer after preliminary investigation into the same, issued charge memo framing 7 charges. The Enquiry officer after fpllowing the procedure laid down in the Regulations submitted his report. As 17 employees of different categories are involved in the case, the chairman, APSEB appointed the Enquiry officer. The petitioner was given opportunity during the course of enquiry by supplying relevant material to him in support of the charges along with the charge-sheet. Apart from the same, the petitioner verified the records from 10-08-1987 to 14-08-1987 and also acknowledged on 14-08-1987 about verification of the records. Relevant portion of the preliminary enquiry report, which was the basis for the charges, copies of statements of the staff recorded during the enquiry on the fire accident in the sub/ero, nandigama were furnished to the petitioner. Apart from the same, the petitioner verified the records from 10-08-1987 to 14-08-1987 and also acknowledged on 14-08-1987 about verification of the records. Relevant portion of the preliminary enquiry report, which was the basis for the charges, copies of statements of the staff recorded during the enquiry on the fire accident in the sub/ero, nandigama were furnished to the petitioner. In spite of giving several opportunities to the petitioner to attend the oral enquiry to give evidence in person on 24-11-1987, if necessary on 25-11-1987 by memo dated 07-11-1987 the petitioner failed to avail the same and sent a telegram stating that he is not interested to give oral evidence. The petitioner was also informed that permitting him to take assistance of co-worker/advocate during the enquiry does not arise in view of Regulation 10 (2) (b) of the Regulations except under special circumstances. In view of the same, the request of the petitioner to engage a counsel was rejected. Disciplinary authority considered all the objections raised by the petitioner and rejected the same. In view of the same, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, sri R. Subhash Reddy, contends that in spite of pending criminal proceedings the enquiry officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry and that cannot be permissible under law. When the petitioner made specific plea to defer the departmental proceedings until the criminal proceedings are concluded but the same was not acceded by the enquiry officer. When the petitioner sought to engage co-worker, he was not permitted which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. The necessary documents, which were sought by the petitioner, were also not supplied to put forward his case effectively. The same amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. When the Chairman of the board himself acted as disciplinary authority and passed the impugned order inflicting punishment of removal from service which resulted in depriving the right of appeal to the petitioner as held by this court in Ch. S. R. A. Swamy v. A. P. S. E. B. 1, which was confirmed in W. A. No. 175 of 1996. S. R. A. Swamy v. A. P. S. E. B. 1, which was confirmed in W. A. No. 175 of 1996. In view of the same, the learned counsel submits that the order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the enquiry officer and the petitioner may be given reasonable opportunity to defend his case during the course of enquiry. ( 4 ) IN contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Board, sri S. Ravindranath, supports the impugned order and contends that pending criminal proceedings is not a bar to proceed with departmental enquiry. Moreover, the criminal case pertains to destruction of records and it has nothing to do with the defalcation of amounts. The petitioner was given several opportunities during the course of enquiry and all necessary documents including the copies of statements of staff recorded during he course of enquiry were made available to him as per Regulations and the petitioner also certifies about verification of the records from 10-08-1987 to 14-08-1987 through his letter dated 14-08-1987. The petitioner himself has to blame for not participating in the enquiry and failing to lead evidence. He has not cross-examined the witnesses, which were produced before the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of the same, the Enquiry Officer after elaborately discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that the charges held proved. On consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Chairman, APSEB by a detailed order confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service. When more than one employee is involved in the offence it is only the Chairman can appoint the Enquiry officer as per Regulation 10 (7) (a) of the regulations. In the present case, there are 17 persons involved in the offence. In view of the same, the Chairman himself issued memo dated 08-01-1987 appointing the enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges of defalcation of Board s funds and destruction of records. Once the Chairman himself acted as disciplinary authority he alone can pass appropriate orders. He also placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balbir Chand v. Food corporation of India Ltd. 2. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that there was outbreak of fire in ERO, Nandigama on 15-12-1986 and 16-02-1986 wherein certain records were destroyed. He also placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balbir Chand v. Food corporation of India Ltd. 2. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that there was outbreak of fire in ERO, Nandigama on 15-12-1986 and 16-02-1986 wherein certain records were destroyed. Charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court into the alleged charges and the Court gave finding that there was some mischief by fire, in gutting official records which led to enquiry into the same and found that there was a large scale defalcation of Board s funds. The petitioner and some other employees were kept under suspension pending enquiry into the charges. In view of the fact that several employees of different ranks are involved in the offence, the Chairman himself ordered for enquiry by appointing mr. B. Koti Reddy, Senior Accounts Officer as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged defalcation of Board s funds who conducted preliminary enquiry and issued necessary charge sheet against the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, regular departmental enquiry was held. It is specifically averred in the counter that relevant portion of preliminary enquiry report which was the basis for the charges and copies of statements of the staff recorded during the enquiry on the fire accident in the sub-ERO, Nandigama were supplied along with charge memo. The petitioner was also verified the records from 10-08-1987 to 14-08-1987 as per his letter dated 14-08-1987 in which he stated as follows:"verified all records sought for by me and noted important points within the reach of my knowledge. "in view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity and necessary documents sought by him were not supplied cannot be accepted. Moreover, Regulation 10 (4) (a) of the Regulations contemplates discretion to the competent authority or the enquiry officer as the case may be to give an opportunity to the accused employee to inspect any document connected with the enquiry but excluding any confidential papers. Nowhere in the affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that he was not permitted to inspect the necessary documents required by him. In the absence of the same, the grievance of the petitioner that he was not supplied with necessary documents has no force and the same cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that he was not permitted to inspect the necessary documents required by him. In the absence of the same, the grievance of the petitioner that he was not supplied with necessary documents has no force and the same cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) COMING to the next grievance of the petitioner that the assistance of Co-worker is not permitted in the course of verification of records which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity has also no force for the reason the petitioner himself verified the entire records and acknowledged that he made note of it. The enquiry officer through his memo dated 07-11-1987 informed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 23-11-1987 with a direction to give evidence in person on 24-11-1987 and if necessary on 25-11-1987 to cross-examine the witnesses who were involved in the case. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21-11-1987 requesting to furnish information required to be furnished in form No. 1 but the same was not furnished and unless the same is furnished it is not possible for him to appea in the enquiry. In reply to the same, the Enquiry Officer through his proceedings dated 08-03-1988 informed the petitioner in the oral enquiry to lead his evidence and also cross-examine the witnesses. In spite of the same, the petitioner has not participated in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and issued show cause notice. The petitioner in his explanation stated that material sought by him was not available and no opportunity was given to him and denial of assistance of Co-worker amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and procecding with enquiry when criminal case s pending is not permissible. These and some other grounds which were raised in his explanation were considered by the disciplinary authority point by point stating that the Enquiry Officer furnished (A) relevant portion of preliminary enquiry report which was the basis for the charges (B) copies of statements of the staff recorded during the enquiry on the fire accident in the sub-ERO,nandigama to the petitioner and informed him that staff mentioned during the enquiry may be examined as witnesses and connected records and registers will be made available for inspection. The petitioner himself since june, 1987 protracting the matter by one pretext or the other. The petitioner himself since june, 1987 protracting the matter by one pretext or the other. As per Regulation 10 (2) (b) assistance of co-worker/advocate in the enquiry will not be accepted except under special circumstances to be recorded in. writing by the Enquiry Officer or any officer to whom an appeal may be preferred. The petitioner having himself chosen not to participate in the enquiry cannot blame that the enquiry officer has not permitted the co-worker to participate in the enqiry. Mere non-permission of the co-worker to represent the petitioner is no way caused prejudice to him. Apart from the same, when the petitioner s request for assistance of co-worker for perusal of records was turneddown, the petitioner himself verified the records from 10-08-1987 to 14-8-1987 and the same is evidence through his letter dated 14-8-1987 and he has not filed any appeal to the appellate authority in that regard. Mere non-permission of the co- worker will not vitiate the enquiry. Reliance placed by the petitioner in Ch. S. R. A. Szuamy s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. Regulation 10 (7) (a) authorizes the Board when two or more members of the same service or different services are involved in any case, the Board or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such members may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. Apart from regulation 10 (7) (a), Regulation 7 (3) authorizes that the powers vested in an authority may be exercised by a superior authority in its discretion. It is not in dispute that 17 people of different categories were involved in the offence and the chairman of the Board himself appointed an Enquiry Officer to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. Neither during the enquiry nor in his explanation to the second show cause notice the petitioner has raised objection with regard to the competence or otherwise of the Chairman in ordering for disciplinary enquiry and in issuing show cause notice. In the absence of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he is deprived of the right of appeal, as the Chairman himself acted as disciplinary authority in the matter. In the absence of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he is deprived of the right of appeal, as the Chairman himself acted as disciplinary authority in the matter. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Balbir Chand s case (supra) after considering the case in surjit Ghosh v. United Commercial Bank3 held as follows:". . . . It is an admitted position that as a joint enquiry was conducted against all the delinquent officials, the highest in the hierarchy of competent authority who could take disciplinary action against the delinquents was none other than the Managing Director of the Corporation. In normal circumstances where the Managing director being the appellate authority should not pass the order of punishment so as to enable the delinquent employee to avail of right of appeal. It is now well settled legal position that an authority lower than the appointing authority cannot take any decision in the matter of disciplinary action. But there is no prohibition in law that the higher authority should not take decision or impose the penalty as the primary authority in the matter of disciplinary action. On that basis, it cannot be said that there will be discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution or causing material prejudice". ( 8 ) WHEN two or more persons are involved in the same offence, it is only chairman of the Board can initiate disciplinary enquiry. In view of the same, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Ch. S. R. A. Swamy s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.