JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 21-06-2012 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.1514 of 2010. The respondent filed the O.A., challenging the order dated 28-02-2008, through which the 3rd petitioner imposed the punishment of stoppage of “RTSP by one stage for two years without effect on future increments and pension” and directing that the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and has set aside the order of punishment. 2. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioners contends that the respondent was issued a charge-sheet, alleging acts of misconduct and though the enquiry officer held that the charge is not proved, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the 3rd petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent and passed the order of punishment, duly following the prescribed procedure. He contends that the Tribunal was mostly impressed by the fact that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case and the same cannot be sustained in law. He further submits that the Tribunal has re-examined the entire issue, as though it is an appellate authority. 3. The respondent is functioning as Head Constable in the Armed Reserve in the AR Headquarters, Nizamabad. A charge-sheet was issued to him, vide proceedings dated 21-03-1997, by the 3rd petitioner. The charge reads as under: “Sri Durga Prasad, AR HC 743 of A.R. Hqrs., Nizamabad has misappropriated the share amount of employees of Police Department to a tune of Rs.28050-00 vide Cr.No:434/96 U/S 468, 420, and 426 IPC of Town-I PS Nizamabad”. 4. The statement of imputations was also annexed. The respondent submitted his explanation, denying the charge. Not satisfied with that, the 3rd petitioner appointed ASP Bodhan, as an enquiry officer. 5. As many as 15 witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer and several documents were filed. The last paragraph of the report reads: “As discussed I am constrained not to hold the charge against the delinquent as proved beyond all reasonable doubts. When loans are being disbursed it should have been the duty of the person incharge to verify from the person whom he has delegated to know the details of share amount and T.D amounts collected and deposited in the Bank. When loans are being disbursed it should have been the duty of the person incharge to verify from the person whom he has delegated to know the details of share amount and T.D amounts collected and deposited in the Bank. No check list was made to know the flow of cash and ultimately comes up with a complaint that the delinquent misappropriated an amount to the tune of Rs.31,350/- which is not correct. I hold the charge as not proved.” 6. The 3rd petitioner however was not satisfied with the report of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice dated 24-08-1999. In case the 3rd petitioner did not want to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer, he ought to have issued a notice to the respondent, indicating as to why a different view be not taken and the charge be treated as proved, duly indicating the basis therefor. However, he issued a memorandum dated 24-08-1999, stating that he does not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer. In matters of this nature, it is only a show cause notice, indicating the tentative conclusion, that must be given. If the disciplinary authority straightaway takes the view that the findings of the enquiry officer are not accepted by him, a serious infirmity and illegality creeps into the proceedings. In the instant case, the memorandum dated 24-08-1999, issued by the 3rd petitioner reads: “I do not agree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. In all organizations, there is delegation of powers/duties/responsibilities. In this case too, the delinquent was trusted and given the power to collect “Cash from Loanees, and remit in the bank”. The Inquiring Authority himself points out that the delinquent’s contention is that he used to remit the collected amount to the DSP AR Nizamabad Sri Prakash Rao, in the presence of the loanees is totally false. This means that the DSP AR Nizamabad being person incharge, trusted him and delegated this authority. Of course, the DSP AR, is fully responsible for not evolving foolproof methods to streamline working of the Society and needs to be dealt with also. But this does not absolve the delinquent of his criminal involvement in the misuse of funds which, as all evidence points, he collected in cash from the loanees. He needs to be dealt with appropriately”. 7. But this does not absolve the delinquent of his criminal involvement in the misuse of funds which, as all evidence points, he collected in cash from the loanees. He needs to be dealt with appropriately”. 7. A perusal of the same discloses that the 3rd petitioner has already made up his mind, not to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and indicated the same in unmistakable terms. Further, it was not even mentioned that the respondent must show as to why a different view not be taken about the charge. He was simply instructed to submit his further representation, if any. The procedure adopted by the 3rd petitioner is contrary to law and it cannot be sustained, at all. 8. On receipt of the memorandum, dated 24-08-1999, the respondent submitted his explanation dated 15-09-1999, running into eight closely typed pages. For about one decade, there was no reaction from the appointing authority, i.e. the 3rd petitioner. 9. Even while initiating the departmental proceedings against the respondent, the petitioners have launched prosecution against him and the case was tried as C.C.No.25 of 2002, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. After a full-fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted the respondent through judgment dated 24-01-2008. Even where an employee is inflicted with punishment, on the basis of the charges, which are identical to those, in criminal case, and he is acquitted at a later point of time, the rules framed and the orders issued by the Government provide for submission of representation to the disciplinary authority, to take the result in the criminal case, into account, and issue modified orders. Curiously enough, the 3rd petitioner, who slept over the matter for nine long years, became overactive, immediately after the criminal Court acquitted the respondent and issued order dated 28-02-2008, inflicting the punishment of stoppage of RTSP by one stage for two years without effect on future increments and pension. Added to that, the period during which, the respondent was kept under suspension, was directed to be treated as not on duty. The whole exercise undertaken by the 3rd petitioner was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. 10. There is another serious infirmity in the proceedings. The allegation against the respondent was in relation to his activities of a society. It was not even mentioned that the society is part of the Police Establishment. The whole exercise undertaken by the 3rd petitioner was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. 10. There is another serious infirmity in the proceedings. The allegation against the respondent was in relation to his activities of a society. It was not even mentioned that the society is part of the Police Establishment. Left to itself, the said society and its members did not initiate any proceedings against the respondent. Obviously exhibiting the official superiority, the 3rd petitioner has taken upon himself, the task of regulating the affairs of the society, and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The acts and omissions on the part of the respondent, even if taken as true, do not constitute the misconduct, as defined under the relevant rules. 11. There are no merits in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 12. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.