JUDGMENT :- The petitioner was working as Marketing Officer in the A.P.State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, the 2nd respondent herein. He was removed from service vide proceedings dated 17.3.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. A charge memo dated 18.3.2000 was issued to the petitioner, whereunder it was alleged that he incurred expenditure contrary to the settled norms, and allowed a Contractor to lift certain items, in violation of the terms of contract Petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.10.2000. A show-cause notice was issued on 12.2.2002, stating inter alia that the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 31.12.2001, and accepting the findings, the punishment of dismissal from service is proposed. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 5.4.2003. According to him, no inquiry was conducted, much less an opportunity was given to him. He has also requested that the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 31.12.2001 be furnished to him. 3. Through memo dated 17.4.2003, the respondents forwarded a copy of the so-called report of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner in turn, made a representation dated 30.4.2003, stating that no inquiry, as contemplated under Bye-law 48 was conducted and that the report cannot constitute any basis for the disciplinary action. 4. The points urged by the petitioner were accepted and vide orders dated 16.5.2003, the 2nd respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer. The latter submitted his report on 22.9.2004, holding that charges 1 and 3 are proved against the petitioner, whereas charge No.2 is not proved. Accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20.1.2005, proposing the punishment of reduction in rank. It was mentioned that this is in supersession of the earlier show-cause notice dated 12.2.2002. The petitioner submitted his explanation, pleading that no punishment can be imposed against him. However, another show-cause notice dated 31.10.2006 was issued to the petitioner, this time, without indicating any punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 8.3.2007, raising an objection to the issuance of the show-cause notice, in this manner. Not being satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order, removing the petitioner from service. 5. The petitioner contends that once a show-cause notice was issued, proposing the punishment of reduction in rank, there was no basis for the respondents in inflicting the punishment of removal from service. Not being satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order, removing the petitioner from service. 5. The petitioner contends that once a show-cause notice was issued, proposing the punishment of reduction in rank, there was no basis for the respondents in inflicting the punishment of removal from service. He submits that throughout proceedings, the prescribed procedure was completely disregarded and the Appointing Authority had, on many occasions, surrendered its powers to the superiors. 6. The respondents filed a counteraffidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. Nothing is stated as constituting the basis for issuing show-cause notices, one after the other, with different contents, at various stages. Facts are pleaded mostly about the amount involved. 7. Sri D. Linga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that at one stage, the show-cause notice was issued without there being an inquiry report, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed only when the defects were pointed out. He contends that accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, punishment of reduction in rank was proposed against the petitioner, and suddenly, the entire course was changed, without there being any basis, and the impugned order is passed in utter violation of settled principles of law. 8. Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though a show-cause notice, proposing the punishment of reduction in rank was issued to the petitioner, the matter was re-examined, in view of the objections raised by the petitioner. He contends that it is the prerogative of the Appointing Authority, to inflict any punishment, once the charges were held proved. He submits that the petitioner was given opportunity to explain, and that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. 9. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner commenced with the service of a charge memo dated 18.3.2000. The three charges framed against the petitioner read as under: "1. That he passed certain irregular expenditure vouchers of various Units of Secunderabad Division, to the extent of Rs.2,30,963.45, while he was working at D.M.O., Secunderabad by allowing them during the year 1995-96 and thereby committed misappropriation of funds of the Apex Society. 2. That he while working as D.M.O., Secunderabad incurred excess amount of expenditure, over and above the budget provision fixed and communicated by Central Office for the year, 1995-96. 3. 2. That he while working as D.M.O., Secunderabad incurred excess amount of expenditure, over and above the budget provision fixed and communicated by Central Office for the year, 1995-96. 3. That he while working as D.M.O., Secunderabad, allowed Sri B.C. V. Subba Reddy of Proddatur, Kadapa District, the bidder to lift the (3) items of reduction stocks from Karwan Godown by accepting Rs.60,024/- only as against the bid amount of Rs.5,00,043/- for the entire reduction stocks and thereby violated the norms fixed in this regard." 10. The necessary background facts were indicated. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 6.10.2000, denying the charges. There is some lack of clarity, as to what happened at the level of the 2nd respondent, after the petitioner submitted his explanation. A show-cause notice dated 12.2.2002 was issued, by making a reference to the report dated 31.12.200 I, said to have been submitted by the inquiry officer. Punishment of dismissal was proposed. The petitioner was rather surprised, since, according to him, no inquiry was conducted, at all. He submitted the representation on 5.4.2003, raising various objections. The 2nd respondent took note of this, and passed orders dated 16.5.2003, appointing the Deputy Director, as an Inquiry Officer. This obviously has drawn a curtain, to all the earlier proceeding, be it, the so-called report of the Inquiry Officer dated 31.12.2001, or the consequential show-cause notice dated 12.2.2002. 11. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22.9.2004, holding that charges 1 and 3 framed against the petitioner are proved, and charge No.2 is not proved. Based upon this, the 2nd respondent issued a revised show-cause notice dated 20.1.2005, which inter alia reads as under: 'The Enquiry Officer has conducted Domestic Enquiry accordingly, and submitted his report vide reference 7th cited, stating that, out of (3) charges, charge Nos.1 and 3 are held proved and charge No.2 held not proved. The appointing authority has gone through the entire case and records once again, keeping in view, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and decided to inflict revised punishment for reduction in his rank, instead of dismissal as communicated in the show-cause notice vide reference 5th cited, to meet the ends of justice. The appointing authority has gone through the entire case and records once again, keeping in view, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and decided to inflict revised punishment for reduction in his rank, instead of dismissal as communicated in the show-cause notice vide reference 5th cited, to meet the ends of justice. He is therefore directed to submit his written explanation to the undersigned within (15) days from the date of receipt of this Revised Show-Cause Notice, failing which it will be deemed that, he has no explanation to offer in the matter, and action will be taken as per the Rules, for disposal of the charges. A copy of the Enquiry Report is enclosed herewith." 12. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.4.2005 with an ultimate prayer, to drop the proceeding, or in the alternative, to give an opportunity of personal hearing. Curiously, the 2nd respondent issued another show-cause notice dated 31.10.2006, on the basis of the very report of the Inquiry Officer dated 22.9.2004. No punishment was indicated, nor any reference was made in this show-cause notice, to the reasons to give up the one, dated 20.1.2005. The only difference between these two notices is that, while the Authority, which issued the show-cause notice dated 20.1.2005, is described as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, the one, who issued the notice dated 31.10.2006, is said to be the Managing Director. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1.12.2006, and the impugned order was passed, imposing the punishment of dismissal. 13. The narration of facts mentioned in the preceding paragraphs discloses that the respondents have committed one illegality after the other, in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. At one stage, a show-cause notice, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service was issued, by treating the observations made by the officer, as an Enquiry Report. When the petitioner drew the attention of the respondents to the relevant provisions of law, and pleaded that no inquiry was held, the mistake was realised, and for the first time, an Inquiry Officer was appointed vide proceedings dated 16.5.2003. 14. In his report, dated 22.9.2004, the Inquiry Officer held that two out of the three charges were held proved. Taking this into account, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 20.1.2005, proposing the punishment of reduction in rank. 14. In his report, dated 22.9.2004, the Inquiry Officer held that two out of the three charges were held proved. Taking this into account, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 20.1.2005, proposing the punishment of reduction in rank. Even assuming that the petitioner did not have any explanation worth its name, to the proposed punishment, the maximum, that could have been was, to impose the proposed punishment. It is just ununderstandable as to how a further show-cause notice dated 31.10.2006 was issued, without either superseding the one, dated 20.1.2005, or indicating any reasons therefor. Excluding the introductory portion, this show-cause notice reads as under: "Since the charged officer has denied the charges in his explanation made reference 7th cited, Domestic Enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer has conducted the Domestic Enquiry and submitted his report vide reference 8th cited stating that out of charges framed against the charged officer, the charge Nos.1 and 3 are held as proved and charge No.2 held as not proved. A copy of the said enquiry report is enclosed. In connection suppression of the show-cause notice issued in the reference 6th and 9th cited, K. Madhusudhan, the then Divisional Marketing Officer, Secunderabad, and now working as SMO (F AC) Central Office has called upon to submit his representation if any on the fmdings of the Enquiry Officer within days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice issued under CCA Rule 21 (c) failing which it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and further action will be initiated for disposal of the charges without any further notice". 15. On his part, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 1.12.2006, stating that he was being harassed by issuing one show-cause notice after the other, and that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents was contrary to the special bye-laws. 16. A further new dimension was added to the proceedings, with the issuance of another show-cause notice dated 23.2.2007, by the Managing Director, the 2nd respondent herein. In this notice, he observed that the explanation submitted by the petitioner, to the show-cause notice dated 31.1 0.2006, is not convincing, and therefore, he has decided to require the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.2,72,504/-, being the cost of unaccounted poly bags and excess of expenditure, incurred by the petitioner. In this notice, he observed that the explanation submitted by the petitioner, to the show-cause notice dated 31.1 0.2006, is not convincing, and therefore, he has decided to require the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.2,72,504/-, being the cost of unaccounted poly bags and excess of expenditure, incurred by the petitioner. From this, one would only infer that the 2nd respondent wanted to give finality to the disciplinary proceedings, by requiring the petitioner to remit the amounts, mentioned above. It is also pertinent to note that the 2nd respondent did not reserve to himself, the right to inflict any other punishment. However, he proceeded to pass the impugned order, imposing the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service, as well as directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,72,504/-. 17. There was hardly any consistency on the part of the respondents in the action initiated by them, against the petitioner. In effect, four show-cause notices, all, final nature, were issued, one, at variance with the other. The prescribed procedure was followed, only in its breach. Each attempt made by the petitioner to inform the respondents, of the deviation from the procedure, has only encouraged them to commit another irregularity. The long career of the petitioner, spread over to 37 years, ought not to have been subjected to such half-baked experiments, by incumbents, who held the positions, in the respondents-organisation. They appear to have lacked even the basic understanding of the prescribed procedure. 18. In his appeal, presented to the Appellate Authority, the petitioner made a detailed narration of every step in the proceedings. He has made a mention to three inquiry reports, and three show-cause notices. He has also pointed out that the three Managing Directors, who dealt with the matter, at different points of time, have, themselves, proposed different punishments. Attention of the Appellate Authority was drawn to the provisions of the CCA Rules, and special bye-laws. The appeal is said to have been rejected on 17.6.2008. This Court is of the view that the action of the respondents, in removing the petitioner from service; cannot be sustained in law. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order of removal, passed against the petitioner, is set aside. 20. There shall be no order as to costs.