Judgment :- K.G. Shankar, J. 1. A very peculiar case where the rules do not provide any mechanism to initiate appropriate action against the Director of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Hyderabad (APERC, for short). The appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.31513 of 2011 in W.P.No.18427 of 2009 dated 20-9-2011 through which directions were issued to enquire into the allegations against the appellant herein. 2. The APERC (4th respondent herein) was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (the Act, for short). In response to the Notification dated 01-01-2003 for the post of the Director (Administration), the appellant applied on 15-02-2003. On the basis of the information furnished by the appellant together with certified copies of the qualifications of the appellant, the appellant was appointed by the 4th respondent-APERC as Director (Administration) through orders dated 28-5-2003. 3. The 1st respondent is the recognized Association of the employees of APERC. The respondents 2 and 3 are members of the 1st respondent-Association. They laid the writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking for the removal of the appellant through a Writ of quo warranto on the ground that the appellant did not possess 15 years of experience in administrative position at the managerial level dealing with Human Resources Development. A miscellaneous petition was laid by the writ petitioners in W.P.M.P.No.31513 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to submit a report to the Government about the appellant in response to the letter of the Government dated 06-01-2011. They claimed that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as the Director (Administration), that he secured appointment by suppressing the fact and that the Government in fact directed the respondents 4 and 5 through letter dated 06-01-2011 to submit a report about the eligibility of the appellant to hold the post of Director (Administration). 4. Through the impugned order dated 20-9-2011, the learned single Judge ordered: “(a) The Head of the Intelligence Wing of the A.P. Police, to whom a copy of this order shall be marked, shall investigate and enquire into the allegations that are made against the petitioner in letter No.1823/Pr.III(1)/ 2008, dated 08-09-2008, and conclude the same within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the record. (b) The Chairman of the Commission shall ensure that the entire record made available to the said Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and an officer shall be deputed to co-ordinate the enquiry. (c) The Director, i.e. the petitioner in WP No.19773 of 2008 shall keep himself away from the official duties till the enquiry is concluded. It shall be open to the Chairman of the Commission to make alternative arrangements for that period. (d) The report shall be submitted to this Court in a sealed cover by 28-10-2011.” 5. Taking strong exception to the directions of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred the present writ appeal. 6. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Vigilance Wing of Andhra Pradesh Police have nothing to do with the APERC and that as the 5th respondent is the only superior officer to the appellant, albeit the 5th respondent is the disciplinary authority, there is no alternative for the 5th respondent except to conduct enquiry against the appellant. He further submitted that the Intelligence Wing is alien to the APERC and that it is not justified to direct the appellant to submit to the jurisdiction of an alien authority. 7. Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6, submitted that the Chairman is not ready to hold enquiry against the appellant and that where a disinterested organization is deployed to hold enquiry, the directions of the learned single Judge cannot be found fault with and do not deserve to be interfered with. 8. When the State Government received complaints against the appellant from the 1st respondent, the Government of Andhra Pradesh chose to appoint Sri D.Murali Mohan, Additional Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to conduct preliminary enquiry on the representation of the 1st respondent. Sri D.Murali Mohan issued a notice to the appellant on 08-9-2008 seeking the remarks of the appellant on the allegations of the 1st respondent against the appellant. The 1st respondent preferred W.P.No.19773 of 2008 challenging the order of Sri D.Murali Mohan. This Court passed orders on 01-5-2009 enabling the 5th respondent to initiate action against the appellant. In the meanwhile, the Government issued Memo on 06-01-2011 withdrawing the appointment of Sri D.Murali Mohan to conduct preliminary enquiry. The 1st respondent preferred W.P.No.19773 of 2008 challenging the order of Sri D.Murali Mohan. This Court passed orders on 01-5-2009 enabling the 5th respondent to initiate action against the appellant. In the meanwhile, the Government issued Memo on 06-01-2011 withdrawing the appointment of Sri D.Murali Mohan to conduct preliminary enquiry. The Government of Andhra Pradesh addressed a letter on the same day to the 5th respondent to initiate action against the appellant. In fact, the respondents 1 to 3 filed W.P.M.P.No.24114 of 2009 seeking for a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to take action against the appellant on the representation of the 1st respondent. Basing upon the representation of the Commission, the Court dismissed W.P.M.P.No.24114 of 2009 but granted liberty to the 4th respondent to take appropriate action against the appellant. 9. It may be pointed out that the sole stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no outside agency can enquire into the conduct of the appellant and that any officer of equal rank or superior in rank to the appellant can hold enquiry against the appellant regarding the allegations made against the appellant by the respondents 1 to 3. He amplified pointing out that if the 5th respondent is the only authority, who is senior to the appellant, it is the 5th respondent who alone can conduct enquiry against the appellant and that the 5th respondent therefore may conduct enquiry against the appellant if he so chooses. He stoutly denied the claim of the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 that the appellant has been stalling enquiry against him submitting that the appellant is ready and submits himself for enquiry and that the appellant however insisted that the enquiry should be properly conducted, viz., inter alia, that the enquiry should be by a competent authority. 10. Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6, points out that the appellant has about 5 years of service still, that he intends to stall the enquiry till then, that the appellant has been successful in thwarting the attempt of the employees of the Commission since 2009 and that if the claim of the appellant that the allegations against him are false, there was no necessity for the appellant to shirk from facing enquiry. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a Writ of quo warranto against the appellant in W.P.No.27866 of 2007 claiming that the appellant did not possess 15 years of administrative experience at the managerial level and that Sri D.Murali Mohan was appointed in connection with the Writ of quo warranto and that when the appellant filed W.P.No.19773 of 2008 challenging the appointment of Sri D.Murali Mohan, the appellant obtained stay initially against the appointment of Sri D.Murali Mohan, that the stay was made absolute subsequently and that the very appointment of Sri D.Murali Mohan was withdrawn by the Government later in the circumstances narrated. 12. He, however, submitted that the learned single Judge travelled beyond the very scope of the writ petition by appointing an external agency to conduct enquiry and submit report in a sealed cover. He drew our attention to the claim of the Commission that it was not evading conducting enquiry against the appellant and that the Commission could not hold enquiry where there is no officer in the Commission superior to the appellant barring for the Chairman himself. We are afraid that the Counter Affidavit of the 5th respondent in the writ petition more or less is enough clear to conclude that the 5th respondent-Chairman considers that there was an impasse on account of the position of the appellant and that the Commission consequently is not going to hold any enquiry against the appellant. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 admitted that barring for the Chairman, there is no officer superior to the position of a Director which post the appellant holds and submitted that it is not as though because the appellant is a Director, the appellant is immune from enquiry. He claimed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned single Judge is perfectly reasonable. He pointed out that the Court did not direct the Head of the Intelligence Wing to submit a report to the Chairman (5th respondent) but to submit the report in a sealed cover to the Court itself for further action. He also contended that it is justified for the learned single Judge to direct the appellant to refrain from attending duties as the same may hamper the investigation. 14. He also contended that it is justified for the learned single Judge to direct the appellant to refrain from attending duties as the same may hamper the investigation. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that when the Police investigated into the allegations against the appellant and filed a final report before the Court that there was no evidence against the appellant and where no protest petition was filed on the final report, ordering further investigation by the Head of the Intelligence Wing would in fact be tantamount to double jeopardy and is not sustainable. While the learned counsel for the Commission submits that protest petition against the final report indeed was filed, there is no proof for the same. At any rate, a final report was filed by the Police after investigating into the allegations against the appellant levelled by the respondents 2 and 3. We are afraid that no citizen in India is immune from liability for his misdeeds. There is mechanism to question the conduct of even a Judge of a superior Court or a Constitutional authority. The Rule of Law does not permit the appellant to claim that his conduct cannot be enquired into. 15. However, where a procedure is contemplated, we are afraid that the procedure prescribed shall be adhered to, more so when the question involves the conduct, character and behavior of a high official or a Constitutional authority. The Regulations clearly envisage that the enquiry should be conducted by an officer superior in rank to that of the employee whose conduct is enquired into. Admittedly, the Chairman is the only officer in the organization of the 4th respondent who is superior to the appellant. We are afraid that the 5th respondent cannot disown the responsibility of conducting enquiry into the allegations on the ground that he is the competent authority to impose punishment. In a situation of this nature, the 5th respondent acts in dual capacity. He holds enquiry against the Director as an enquiry officer. He later sits as the competent authority to decide on the enquiry report and to act upon the enquiry report. There cannot be any alternative in such a situation as the one on hand. The 5th respondent- Chairman, therefore, cannot claim that he cannot be the enquiry officer as he is the disciplinary authority as well. 16. He later sits as the competent authority to decide on the enquiry report and to act upon the enquiry report. There cannot be any alternative in such a situation as the one on hand. The 5th respondent- Chairman, therefore, cannot claim that he cannot be the enquiry officer as he is the disciplinary authority as well. 16. We may however consider that the option deserves to be left to the 5th respondent-Chairman either to conduct enquiry all by himself or engage an external agency to conduct enquiry and submit a report to him for further action. The Regulations do not speak about engaging a third party agency to enquire into the conduct of an employee of the APERC. However, the Regulations also do not prohibit the Chairman from engaging a third party agency to conduct enquiry. The only condition is that the enquiring authority shall be superior in rank to that of the charged employee. When a third party agency is engaged, the question of the enquiring officer being subordinate, equal or superior in rank to that of the charged officer does not arise. Indeed in such an eventuality, the disciplinary authority shall take care to see that a suitable third party agency should be engaged to hold the disciplinary enquiry. 17. We, therefore, consider that it is open for the 5th respondent-Chairman to act in his dual capacity. The Chairman would also be entitled to engage the services of an external agency to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner and submit the report to the Chairman so that the Chairman can continue further action. We, therefore, leave it open for the 5th respondent-Chairman to conduct enquiry in accordance with the Rules or engage a suitable external agency to conduct enquiry against the petitioner following the procedure contemplated by the Regulations and directing such third party agency to submit the report to the 5th respondent-Chairman for him to take appropriate action thereafter. However, for the reasons already set out, we make it clear that it is not open for the Court to engage the services of an external agency however high it be, to go into the alleged irregularities of the petitioner. 18. However, for the reasons already set out, we make it clear that it is not open for the Court to engage the services of an external agency however high it be, to go into the alleged irregularities of the petitioner. 18. Consequently, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned single Judge on the ground the Rules and Regulations envisage enquiry by the 5th respondent-Chairman or by his nominee and not by an external agency through the intervention of the Court. The 5th respondent-Chairman of APERC shall conduct enquiry all by himself in his capacity as an enquiry officer. In such a situation, he shall indeed consider the enquiry report later as the competent authority. Since the appellant himself has invited the 5th respondent-Chairman to conduct enquiry, the appellant shall not be entitled to claim later that the competent authority himself was not entitled to conduct enquiry and that the enquiry report of the enquiry conducted by the competent authority himself is vitiated. In the alternative, the 5th respondent-Chairman may engage a suitable third party agency and direct it to conduct enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner by following the Rules and Regulations and to submit a report to the 5th respondent-Chairman. In such an event, the 5th respondent-Chairman shall act as the competent authority thereafter and proceed in accordance with the Rules. 19. The writ appeal is ordered accordingly. The order of the learned single Judge consequently is set aside. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, W.A.M.P.Nos.2004 of 2011 and 564 of 2012 are closed. No costs.