Judgment : The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus to declare that the order of his dismissal as illegal and to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner joined in the service as Helper on 12-05-1984. On the basis of Matriculation Certificate, he disclosed his date of birth as 12-02-1953. It was so entered in the office records. In 1991, the petitioner was promoted as Lineman. Later, the petitioner was converted as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) during the same year. In 2005, the petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). 3. On 13-03-2009, a charge sheet was issued making two allegations against the petitioner viz., that the petitioner has allowed Smt. A.Venkateswaramma to discharge his duties for a period of two years in violation of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Revised Conduct Regulations (for short “the Regulations”) and that the petitioner has got entered false date of birth in his service record as 05-2-1953 while the real date of birth was 05-02-1951. 4. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty in the enquiry. After the petitioner was found guilty, on 01-07-2009 a show cause notice was issued to him to answer the findings in the enquiry report. After receipt of the representation/explanation from the petitioner, orders were passed on 30-09-2009, dismissing him from service. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The petitioner raised three grounds questioning the order of removal from service. He contended that the entire proceedings are vitiated, as show cause notice was not given before charge sheet was issued against him and that the same was in violation of Regulation 10(2)(a) of Andhra Pradesh State Transmission Corporation Limited Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. The petitioner also contended that the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and is liable to be set aside. The third ground, which is an alternative ground, contended by the petitioner is that assuming that the petitioner is guilty, punishment recorded against him is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct and is liable to be interfered with. 6. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations, show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner before issuance of charge sheet. 6. The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations, show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner before issuance of charge sheet. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in CH. APPALA REDDY v. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. (2005 (3) ALT 525 (DB)in support of his contention. The Division Bench of this Court held, in that case, that the appointment of Enquiry Officer without prior show cause notice to the employee is unknown to service jurisprudence. Admittedly, notice was not given to the petitioner before charge sheet was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as the charge sheet was straightaway issued without show cause notice, the subsequent enquiry shall stand vitiated. 7. Learned standing counsel for the respondents pointed out that when charge sheet was issued, a domestic enquiry was ordered and the petitioner participated in the enquiry without any demur. The petitioner did not plead before the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry was bad, as no notice before charge sheet was given to him. The petitioner also did not raise such a plea in the statutory appeal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now urge that the very enquiry is vitiated on the ground that show cause notice before charge sheet had not been issued, which is a violation as observed in Ch. Appala Reddy’s case (1 supra). 8. I am satisfied that the petitioner consciously participated in the enquiry and had been given fair opportunity to put-forth his case. Consequently, if there was a technical lapse, it was condoned by the petitioner himself. Further, the petitioner failed to show how prejudice was caused to him by this technical lapse. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that prior show cause notice was not issued to him and that the same is violation of Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations leading to vitiating the enquiry proceedings is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, even assuming that they are proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of the petitioner automatically leads to non-entitlement of the petitioner for any retiral benefits including gratuity and other benefits, if any. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, even assuming that they are proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of the petitioner automatically leads to non-entitlement of the petitioner for any retiral benefits including gratuity and other benefits, if any. He also submitted that in the event the charges are proved, the punishment of dismissal was too harsh. I do not wish to go into the question, in view of my observations with reference to other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the enquiry officer is perverse. I, therefore, do not express any opinion regarding the punishment being disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. 10. It is alleged that the petitioner submitted a false date of birth. It is not that Matriculation Certificate submitted by the petitioner is false. It is the case of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner studied from 6th class to 9th class in the Government Junior College, Repalle and that it was recorded in the school record that the date of birth of the petitioner was 05-02-1951. But, however, in the Matriculation Certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 12-02-1953. In case of conflict between the school record and ultimately Matriculation Certificate, I consider that the date of birth as shown in the Matriculation Certificate prevails over the other school record. It is the Matriculation/SSC/SSLC Certificate which is taken as authority for the date of birth of an employee. Consequently, the school record cannot be a ground to state that the petitioner has given a false certificate regarding his date of birth. It is not the case of anybody that Matriculation Certificate submitted by the petitioner was false. It is a genuine certificate, indeed. According to the Matriculation Certificate, date of birth of the petitioner is 12-02-1953. The respondents have accepted the same when the petitioner joined in service and entered the same in the service record. Therefore, the respondents, now, cannot turn round and claim that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05-02-1951 in accordance with the school record and that it shall be incorporated in the service record of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall be found guilty for giving a false date of birth. Therefore, the respondents, now, cannot turn round and claim that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05-02-1951 in accordance with the school record and that it shall be incorporated in the service record of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall be found guilty for giving a false date of birth. The very ground on which the Enquiry Officer held that Charge No.2 is proved cannot be accepted, where the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer is school record. As already pointed out, the Matriculation Certificate takes precedence over the school record. Consequently, the date of birth of the petitioner shall be considered as 12-02-1953 as shown in the Matriculation Certificate. If the date of birth is 12-02-1953, Charge No.2 automatically fails. 11. Regarding Charge No.1, it is claimed by the Enquiry Officer that Smt. A.Venkateswaramma acted on behalf of the petitioner for as much as two years in his official position. There is no evidence in that context. The order of the Enquiry Officer is more axiomatic. The Enquiry Officer does not refer to any evidence, as to the basis on which he could reach the conclusion that Smt. A.Venkateswaramma acted on behalf of the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk. In the absence of any reference to the evidence and reasons, the Enquiry Officer cannot conclude that Charge No.1 is made out. Therefore, I hold that Charge No.1 is not proved. Thus, it is the case where both the charges have not been proved. When both the charges are not proved, the question of imposing any penalty does not arise. This is the reason why I hold that I do not wish to express any opinion regarding the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. I do not find any misconduct on the part of the petitioner; so much so, the question of imposing any penalty does not arise. Where Charges 1 and 2 are not proved, imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service from the date he was removed from service either by way of suspension or dismissal. He shall be entitled to continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits. Where Charges 1 and 2 are not proved, imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Consequently, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service from the date he was removed from service either by way of suspension or dismissal. He shall be entitled to continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits. The respondents shall work out the same and pay the same to the petitioner within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.