Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks for setting aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner on the basis of the Enquiry Report that the petitioner was guilty of committing theft of Electric Bundle of the respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that no proper enquiry was conducted and that nothing is proved in the enquiry, so much so, the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. 3. The petitioner was working as a Record Assistant with the respondent. On 8.7.2004 one Sri. P. Narasimha Reddy, Supervisor of the Building Construction lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Abids that the petitioner attempted to commit theft of Electric Wire Bundle at Excise Department, M.J Road, Hyderabad at about 2.15 PM. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was issued in Crime No. 264 of 2004. The petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody along with the charge sheet itself. While things stood thus, on 2.2.2005, the de-facto complainant Sri P. Narasimha Reddy and the accused approached the Lok Adalat and reporting settlement of the case. Consequently, the case was compounded. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence of attempted theft. 4. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the Department. In the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty for attempt to commit theft. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, proceedings were issued on 12.12.2005 removing the petitioner from service. Smt. G. Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority did not follow Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (‘CCA Rules’ for short). It is her contention that Rule 20 envisages supply of charge sheet together with the documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent before the enquiry is conducted and that it had not been done in the present case. After the petitioner was found guilty and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he could not be removed from service, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2005. In his reply dated 21.6.2005, the petitioner contended that the provisions of Rule 20 of CCA Rules have not been followed. However, it has not been clearly stated as to what provision of Rule 20 of CCA Rules had not been followed by the respondent. In his reply dated 21.6.2005, the petitioner contended that the provisions of Rule 20 of CCA Rules have not been followed. However, it has not been clearly stated as to what provision of Rule 20 of CCA Rules had not been followed by the respondent. In the absence of proper evidence, I am not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer violated the provisions of Rule 20 of CCA Rules. I reject the contention of the petitioner in this regard. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer and there was no proof regarding the guilt of the petitioner and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was guilty is perverse. The Enquiry Officer did not record the evidence of any witness before him. He merely recorded that Crime No. 264 of 2004 lodged by Sri P. Narasimha Reddy against the petitioner was compounded before the Lok Adalat and that consequently it was proved that the petitioner attempted to commit theft of Current Wire Bundle. I am afraid that when a case was compounded before the Lok Adalat or before the Regular Court, inference cannot be drawn that the accused in the case was guilty. There are varieties of reasons why cases are compounded before the Court. Reaching the conclusion by the Enquiry Officer from the fact that the case was compounded that the petitioner was guilty of attempting to commit theft of the property of the Government is certainly far-reaching and is perverse. Such a finding cannot be countenanced. 6. There is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to find the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. Consequently, the finding of the guilt of the accused by the Enquiry Officer is liable to be set aside. Once the petitioner is found not guilty of the charge levelled against him, the removal of the petitioner is unjustified. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.12.2005, removing the petitioner from service, is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.