Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Memo No.CE/DC/DM.V/936-Q1/96-11, dated 25-07-1998, issued by the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘APSEB’), Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and the consequential Memo No.CE/DC/DM.V/936-Q1/96-12, dated 25-10-1999, issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the increment of petitioner as reduced in terms of aforesaid memo. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: i) While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in APSEB, certain charges were leveled against him, and accordingly, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry. Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. Initially, three charges were leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. The initial charges leveled against the petitioner are as follows: “Charge – I: It is alleged that Sri Md. Yakub, Asst. Engineer/Operation/Korivi in the month of January, 1996 had un-authorisedly issued three poles to the Ex-Sarpanch, Chintapalli Village Sri Baloji, though there was no sanction available to the well of Sri Baloji. The Asst. Engineer also issued 8 poles to Wasaram and Hatchiya relatives of Sri. Baloji though the sanction was available for 6 poles only. Charge – II: It is alleged that Sri Md. Yakub, Asst.Engineer/Operation/Korivi while preferring complaint in the Police station of serolu on 7-1-1996 deliberately avoided the names of the A.L.M. Sri Pullaiah and Baloji, Ex-Sarpanch of Chintalapalli village though they actually participated while removing the neutral wire from the existing well of Sri Bhukya Mangi to the well of Wasaram of Chintapally Village consisting of 6 poles and strung the wire to the wells of Sri M. Baloji and Wasram on 6-1-1996. Charge – III: It is alleged that Sri Md. Yakub, Asst.Engineer/Operation/Korivi (U/S), during his tenure as Korivi section officer, there were 77 cement poles lying in the section office premises, Aiyyagaripally. There was no record of the existence of the poles. It was also alleged that the Asst. Engineer has not maintained stock register for any material including poles and could not produce the same during the investigation by Inspector of Police, APTS & Vigilance/on 25-5-1996.” 3. As far as charge No.1 is concerned, the Inquiry Officer found the same as not proved. 4. It was also alleged that the Asst. Engineer has not maintained stock register for any material including poles and could not produce the same during the investigation by Inspector of Police, APTS & Vigilance/on 25-5-1996.” 3. As far as charge No.1 is concerned, the Inquiry Officer found the same as not proved. 4. In so far as charge No.2 is concerned, the explanation of the petitioner is that after receiving the complaint from Bhukya Sydulu and other consumers of Chintalapalli village on 07-01-1996 against D. Yesu, Village Electricity Worker, Kandikonda, he enquired the consumers at the spot and requested them to inform the names of the other persons involved in removing the neutral wire, but nobody informed the names of other persons involved in it, and accordingly, he could not mention the names of other persons involved in the offence. Not satisfying with the said explanation, the Inquiry Officer found charge No.II as proved against the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, Bhukya Somaji, who is the complainant, did not support the case of the Department. When the complaint lodged by the Villagers specifically referring to the names of D. Yesu and other persons involved in the offence, those names were not mentioned in the report. According to the petitioner, when he enquired with the consumers at the spot, nobody had informed him the names of other persons involved in the offence. It appears that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct, and he simply forwarded the complaint received from Mr. Bhukya Sydulu and others, to the Police. It has to be seen that the petitioner is neither a Police Officer nor an Inquiry Officer to conduct any preliminary investigation. It is for the police to make an inquiry. In a case of cognizable offence, responsibility of the concerned official is only to forward the same, as urgently as possible, to the Police, and the petitioner discharged his duty in accordance with law, since there was no legal obligation to make inquiry into the matter by the petitioner, who is only an employee of the Electricity Board. In view of the above, the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to proving charge No.II against the petitioner appears to be incorrect and based on presumptions and assumptions. 6. In view of the above, the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to proving charge No.II against the petitioner appears to be incorrect and based on presumptions and assumptions. 6. Now, coming to charge No.III, the Inquiry Officer held that this charge is not proved against the petitioner having verified the initial account books, requisition books etc. 7. In this case it appears after filing the charge sheet, again the department filed supplemental charge sheet and based on it, supplemental charges were also framed and the same are as under: “Supplemental Charge – I: It is alleged that Sri Md. Yakub, Asst. Engineer (U/S) had collected illegal gratification in collusion with Asst.Lineman Sri Pullaiah and Ex-sarpanch Mudu Baloji of Chintalapalli Village of thousands of rupees from the farmers Sarvasri (1) Bhukya Vasaram (2) Lokya Hatcha (3) Baloji (4) Chall Krishna Murthy and thereby committed serious irregularity and misconduct. Supplemental Charge – II: It is alleged that Sri Md. Yakub, Asst. Engineer (U/S) had collected an amount of Rs.2,000/- from Sri Bairu Ramulu S/o. Balaraju as illegal gratification for extending electric supply to the well of Sri. Bairu Ramulu located in S.No.246 of Seerole Village in collusion with the Lineman Sri B. Narsaiah and the supply was extended to the above said well without the sanction of the estimate and out of priority. The pumpset was run for two years. When an another person by name Sri P. Laxminarayana on whose name the above materials were drawn gave a complaint on 6-7-1996, the line laid above to the well of Sri Bairu Ramulu was removed, thereby causing irreparable loss to both the farmers and committed serious irregularities.” 8. As far as supplemental charges are concerned, the Inquiry Officer found that the same are not proved against the petitioner. 9. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Member Secretary, APSEB in its Memo No.CE/ENQ./DM.V/936-Q1/96-10, dated 26-07-1997, incorrectly observed that the supplemental charge No.I is proved against the petitioner. It is to be seen that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 10. The settled legal proposition is that after receiving inquiry report, it is for the Disciplinary Authority either to accept the findings of Inquiry Officer or to differ with the same. It is to be seen that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 10. The settled legal proposition is that after receiving inquiry report, it is for the Disciplinary Authority either to accept the findings of Inquiry Officer or to differ with the same. If some of the charges are proved, then copy of inquiry report has to be furnished to the concerned delinquent by giving him an opportunity to offer his explanation to the Departmental Inquiry, and then should proceed with the matter. When the Disciplinary Authority differs with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, he should examine the evidence adduced during inquiry and assign the reasons for taking a different view from the view, which was already taken by the Inquiry officer in his report. Though the Disciplinary Authority has every right to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, but he has to give specific reasons in differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 11. In this case, the Disciplinary Authority has categorically accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of both the charges initially framed as the supplemental charges. Once it has accepted the findings, it is deemed that it has accepted the findings of the Inquiry officer on supplemental charges also. When the Inquiry Officer gave his findings with regard to supplemental charge-I as not proved against the petitioner, then the Disciplinary Authority was not justified in holding that the charge No.1 is proved against the petitioner. 12. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the petitioner was not obliged to make an independent inquiry into the allegations, and therefore, it is clear that the charge No.2 framed against the petitioner is also not proved. Once it is held that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved, naturally, the consequences would be the punishment imposed on the petitioner has to be set aside. 13. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Memo No.CE/DC/DM.V/936-Q1/96-11, dated 25-07-1998, issued by the Member Secretary, APSEB, Hyderabad and the consequential Memo No.CE/DC/DM.V/936-Q1/96-12, dated 25-10-1999 are set aside. The respondents are directed to pass consequential orders in respect of increment of the petitioner within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The respondents are directed to pass consequential orders in respect of increment of the petitioner within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.