G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 5/6. 1. 1994 removing the petitioner from service as confirmed by the 1 st respondent in the Order dated 5-5-1994. ( 2 ) THE facts and events leading to thefiling of the Writ Petition are as follows: petitioner joined as causal labour in the ore Handling Co-operative Society in the year 1959. Therefore, he was promoted as c-category worker and he was further promoted as B-category worker. He was also promoted to A-category worker and he was given token No. 1592 in the Traffic department. It appears that an anonymous complaint was received by the Chairman of the Port Trust that the petitioner impersonated one Bokam Simhadri and thereby obtained employment by playing fraud on the authorities. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued charge memo dated 21 -8-1992 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It is also stated in the said memorandum that one Bokam sreeramulu made a complaint that the petitioner impersonated his father Bokam simhadri and got the job. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. However, he stated that his cousin Bokam Sreeramulu in collusion with the petitioner s eldest son bokam Eshwar Rao gave a false complaint against the petitioner in 1976-77 itself and the enquiry was conducted by one mr. Vidyasagar and it was found that the complaint was false. However, another complaint was made against the petitioner about the impersonation on which charge memo was issued. The 2nd respondnet thereafter conducted an enquiry and the enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge of impersonation. After receipt of the inquiry report, the petitioner submitted explanation stating that his cousin Bokam sreeramulu in collusion with his son Eshwar rao filed a false complaint on account of property disputes inter se and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was not correct. However, the 2nd respondent passed orders on 5/6-1-1994 removing the petitioner from service. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 5-5-1994. The said orders as affirmed by the appellate authority came to be challenged in the Writ Petition. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner thatcharge of impersonation has been foisted against him and that he has not impersonated Bokam Sreeramulu. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 5-5-1994. The said orders as affirmed by the appellate authority came to be challenged in the Writ Petition. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner thatcharge of impersonation has been foisted against him and that he has not impersonated Bokam Sreeramulu. On the other hand, he entered the service as a labour in 1959, subsequently he was granted promotion from time to time and ultimately he was made permanent. Therefore, the question of impersonation does not arise. He further submits that there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to sustain the charge of impersonation. Thus, the Enquiry officer rendered the finding on the basis of the reports alleged to have been submitted by the Collector as well as the Mandal revenue Officer and the enquiry was conducted without the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, the Enquiry Officer ought not to have relied on such report. He also submits that the findings of the Enquiry officer are wholly perverse and not based on legal evidence. Further, he submits that the charge of impersonation is not an enumerated misconduct under regulation 25-C of the Regulations and therefore, he could not be proceeded with. Thus, he submits that the punishment of removal from service is illegal and unsustainable. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS have not filed anycounter. However, on the directions of this court, they submitted the enquiry file for perusal of this Court. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was charged for misconduct of impersonation and obtained employment under the Port. A charge sheet was issued to him and thereafter enquiry was conducted giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. The enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge and thereafter after furnishing report of the Enquiry Officer and receiving explanation, he was imposed with punishment of removal. Thus, the action taken by the department is quite legal and valid and there are not grounds to interfere with the Orders passed by the management. ( 6 ) THE issue that arises for considerationis whether the Order of punishment of removal is sustainable in law? ( 7 ) THE petitioner was issued with acharge sheet on 21 -8-1992. Thus, the action taken by the department is quite legal and valid and there are not grounds to interfere with the Orders passed by the management. ( 6 ) THE issue that arises for considerationis whether the Order of punishment of removal is sustainable in law? ( 7 ) THE petitioner was issued with acharge sheet on 21 -8-1992. The preamble of the charge sheet reads as follows:"that Sri Bokam Sannibabu S/o late yerukunaidu, impersonated himself as sri Bokam Simhadri S/o Sani entered into Port service in the year 1966 as casual Labour and secured serviced promotions as DHL b Category worker and a category worker with the token No. 1592 in the Traffic department, VPT and enjoyed all privileges and benefits right from the beginning by producing false information and also cheated the Port administration. On a complaint, his case was referred to the Collector, Visakhapatnam and also Police authorities to make discreet inquiries about his impersonation. After, due enquiries, the Collector visakhapatnam, in his Letter Re. No. 537/92 C5, dated 22-4-92 has informed that the Mandal Revenue officer, Sabbavaram, got enquired into the case. The enquiry revealed that Sri bokam Yerukunaidu and Bokam simhadri residents of Thavwanipalem village of Sabbavaram Mandal are brothers. Sri Bokam Simhadri worked as Labourer in Visakhapatnam Port trust. About 25 years back, Sri Bokam simhadri took Sri Bokam Sannibabu (who is at present working in VPT) who is his brother s son to Port Trust and got him entrusted into his job as labourer and at the time of introduction of Photo identity and by the Port authorities Sri Sannaibabu had managed to get his Photo affixed on the Badge No. B/pat/lhl/1592 in the name of B. Simhadri. Sri Bokam simhadri died in the month of June, 1991. The whole episode came to light when sri Bokam Sreeramulu s/o Simhadri has put in a petition to Port authorities due to ill-feelings between himself and sri B. Sannibabu. It is a clear case of impersonation committed by sri B. sannibabu and appropriate action may have to be taken against the delinquent under Section 419 of ipc and other Departmental Rules of vpt. To this effect, the Collector, visakhapatnam has also enclosed a copy of the report of the Mandal revenue Officer, Sabbavaram, and a copy of the statements of Sri Bokam sriramulu and Sri Bokam Sinnaibabu. To this effect, the Collector, visakhapatnam has also enclosed a copy of the report of the Mandal revenue Officer, Sabbavaram, and a copy of the statements of Sri Bokam sriramulu and Sri Bokam Sinnaibabu. In view of the Collector s report, sri Bokam Simhadri, DHL, Worker a" category, T. No. 1592, T. M. S. department has been called and enquired the matter. In his statement dated 3-5-1992, Sri Simhadri has admitted that his real name is Bokam sannaibabu S/o Yerukunaidu. In 1966, his paternal uncle viz. Sri Bokam simhadri who is working as D. H. O. Worker, T. No. 1592 in VPT, brought him and advised to work in the name of Bokam Simhadri, as D. H. O. Worker in VPT, since his uncle has no son of that age group. In 1971, Sri Simhadri got promoted as b category worker and later a" category worker by enjoying all service benefits and privileges right from 1966 onwards in the name of Sri Bokam Simhadri. Recently, the Mandal Revenue Officer sabbavaram, has got enquired the matter in the presence of Village sarpanch and Sri Bokam Sreeramulu where he admitted the facts about his impersonation and gave statement to this effect. Finally, he revealed that sri Bokam Simhadri died in the month of June, 1991 and that due to illiterate and ignorance, this great mistake was committed by him. A statement dated 13-5-92 of Sri Bokam Esara Rao s/o Sannibabu was also obtained wherein he admitted the facts about his father s impersonation. Sri Bokam Simhadri in spite of getting service promotions and privileges, he did not bring the notice of his employer about his impersonation. Thus Sri Bokam Simhadri DHL a category worker T. No. 1592 Traffic department has committed serious misconduct in the light of 25-A XII of the consolidated Rules for Visakhapatnam port Trust Shore labour. Sri Bokam Simhadri, T. No. 1592, DHL worker is, therefore, hereby advised to submit his explanation within 10 days from the date of receipt of this memorandum as to why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the above charge. If no explanation is received, on or before the stipulated times, it would be deemed that he has nothing to say in the matter and the action would be taken on the strength of the material available. If no explanation is received, on or before the stipulated times, it would be deemed that he has nothing to say in the matter and the action would be taken on the strength of the material available. "thus, as can be seen from the above particulars in the charge sheet, it is seen that the Collector had already conducted an enquiry and also some statements appear to have been recorded by the Mandal Revenue officer. These documents were made basis for issuing the charge sheet. However the petitioner submitted the explanation clearly stating that he was appointed as labour in the year 1966 along with other workers and his thumb impression was taken at the time of entry into service. He also stated that before issuing permanent dock entry pass enquiries were made. His fingerprints were obtained by the management and identification moles were recorded in the relevant files. Due to family disputes, his son and his cousin colluded together and made a false enquiry (sic. complaint) as early as in 1966 and an enquiry was conducted, ultimately the complaints were found to be false. He categorically states that his name was Bokam Simhadri @ Sanni Babu, son of sunny. He further submits that when enquiry was conducted, his thumb impression was taken under threat. As can be seen from the enquiry file submitted by the management, one witness by name Ramana Murthy, senior Asst. was examined in support of the charges. The letter received from the collector as well as the Mandal Revenue officer were marked in the enquiry. No other witnesses were examined in support of the charge. The statement of the employee was also recorrecorded. However, it is to be noted in this regard that the charged employee is an illiterate person and he affixes only his thumb impressions. However, he was defended by one Satya Rao, Co-worker. The enquiry Officer merely basing on the letter of the Collector dated 22-6-1992 and the statement of the petitioner alleged to have been recorded by the Mandal Revenue officer held that the charge framed against the petitioner was held to be proved. However, he was defended by one Satya Rao, Co-worker. The enquiry Officer merely basing on the letter of the Collector dated 22-6-1992 and the statement of the petitioner alleged to have been recorded by the Mandal Revenue officer held that the charge framed against the petitioner was held to be proved. ( 8 ) IT is to be noted in this regard thatneither the report of the Collector nor of the mandal Revenue Officer cannot be relied on as those reports were submitted behind the back of the petitioner and he had no opportunity to participate in the said enquiry. Further, such a complaint was also received by the management in 1975-76, and it was also enquired into and no further action was taken. Even though it was mentioned in the explanation to the charge sheet, the respondents have not referred to that issue at all. The thrust of the misconduct according to the management was that the original name of the petitioner was Bokam Sanni babu, Son of Eruku Naidu and he impersonated Bokam Simhadri alleged to be uncle of the petitioner and entered the service as if he was Bokam Simhadri. But, the manage ment has not produced any record whatsoever to the effect that Bokam simhadri was employed in the Port Trust at any point of time and there was no evidence either oral or documentary to establish that bokam Simhadri worked in the Port Trust at any point of time. Further, none of the workmen were examined to establish that earlier one Bokam Simhadri was worked and after some time in his place, the petitioner started working. On the other hand, it is a clear case of the petitioner that he was working from 1959 onwards in various capacities and his thumb impressions and particulars of moles were also entered by the management. The charges were framed after nearly 30 years of service of the petitioner, that too on a compliant alleged to have been made by one Bokam Sreeramulu, cousin of petitioner. But, the said Bokam sreeramulu was not examined nor any persons from the locality where Bokam simhadri was residing was examined. However, it appears that Bokam Simhadri died in the year 1991 and thereafter disputes regarding the property arose and in that connection false complaint came to be sent against the petitioner. But, the said Bokam sreeramulu was not examined nor any persons from the locality where Bokam simhadri was residing was examined. However, it appears that Bokam Simhadri died in the year 1991 and thereafter disputes regarding the property arose and in that connection false complaint came to be sent against the petitioner. Be that as it may, when a charge of impersonation is framed against the employee, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to establish that petitioner impersonated Bokam Simhadri and he entered the service as if he is a bokam Simhadri. This primary and basis evidence is lacking in this case. Unless, it is established that one person by name Bokam simhadri was employed earlier to the petitioner, the charge cannot be said to be established. The reports of the Collector or the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot be put against the petitioner inasmuch as those enquiries were conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer in his report observed thus:"analysis of evidence: that Sri Bokam Sannibabu s/o (late) yerukunaidu impersonated himself as bokam Simhadri s/o Sanni entered into port Service in the year 1966 as casual and secured service promotion as OHL b Cat. Worker and a cat. Worker with the token No. 1592 in the traffic Department, VPT, and enjoyed all privileges and benefits right from the beginning by producing false information and also cheated the Port administration. On a complaint, his case was referred to the Collector, Visakhapatnam and police authorities to make discreet enquiries about his impersonation. After due enquiries the Collector, visakhapatnam in his Lr. Rc. No. 537/92, c5, dt. 22-6-92 that the Mandal revenue Officer, Sabbavaram got enquired into the case. The enquiry revealed that Sri Bokkam Yerukunaidu and Bokkam Simhadri residents of thavvavanipalem village of sabbavaram Mandal are brother. Sri bokam Simhadri had worked as labour in Visakhapatnam Port Trust. About 25 years back Sri Bokam simhadri took Sri Bokkam Sannibabu (who is at present working in VPT) who managed to get his photo affixed on the badge No. B/port/ohl/1592 in the name of Sri Simhadri, Sri Bokam simhadri died in the month of June, 1991. The whole episode came to light when bokam Sri Ramulu S/o Simhadri has put in a petition to Port authorities due to ill-feelings between himself and sri B. Sannibabu. The whole episode came to light when bokam Sri Ramulu S/o Simhadri has put in a petition to Port authorities due to ill-feelings between himself and sri B. Sannibabu. In view of the Collector s report sri Bokam Simhadri OHL worker a cat. T. No. 1592 T. M. s Department has been called and enquired the matter. In this statement dt. 13-5-92, sri B. Simhadri has admitted that his real name is Bokkam Sannibabu s/o Yerukunaidu. From the above analysis it is observed that the charge employee Sri Bokam simhadri has committed serious misconduct in the light of 25-A X of the consolidated rules for Visakhapatnam port Trust Shore labour and the statement given by the Defence witness is contrary. Findings: the charge framed against Sri Bokam simhadri, OHL Worker T. No. 1592 is proved"thus, I find that the findings of the Enquiry officer is absolutely unsustainable. Further, it is curious to note that the petitioner entered the service in 1959 and even according to the management he joined in 1966 and the charge was framed in the year 1992 nearly after 25 years of his service and the said action against employee is highly belated. It appears that only on a complaint made by bokam Sreeramulu such an action was taken and as already stated by the petitioner bokam Sreeramulu had disputes with the petitioner. Under those circumstances, I hold that the Order of termination is illegal and is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) THE disciplinary authority as well as theappellate authority did not concentrate on this crucial issue and they were carried away by the report of the Collector and Mandal revenue Officer without establishing the charge in the enquiry. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Orders are set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service forthwith. Ifind that the punishment was imposed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner after the petitioner had put in 30 years of regular service. I am of the view that the petitioner is also entitled for the back wages. Since the matter was pending in court nearly for one decade, I find awarding of 50 per cent of back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement is just and reasonable and he is also entitled for all the consequential service benefits viz. Since the matter was pending in court nearly for one decade, I find awarding of 50 per cent of back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement is just and reasonable and he is also entitled for all the consequential service benefits viz. seniority, promotion and other benefits which he would have earned had he continued in service. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petition is allowed with costsof Rs. 2,000/ -. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service and also he shall also be paid 50% of back wages as directed above within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.