Judgment The petitioner, a junior lecturer in the College under the Management of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Society, Hyderabad (‘the Society’, for brevity), filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the 1st respondent in reverting her from the post of Junior Lecturer (History) to the post of Graduate Teacher (Social Studies), as a measure of punishment. The facts in brief are that the petitioner initially joined on 25.09.1986 as a Post Graduate Teacher in Social Studies in the school under the management of the respondent Society and got promoted as Junior Lecturer on 02.07.1996. Initially, in the year 1998, the petitioner was posted in Parvathipuram as in-charge Principal of Upgraded Junior College of the Society and was subsequently transferred to several other places. Eventually, on 08.08.2004 the petitioner was transferred as in-charge Principal to Pathapatnam, where she worked till 05.10.2006. The said College was said to have been upgraded, just prior to the petitioner’s transfer to it. When the petitioner was in Pathapatnam, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 26.07.2005, seeking an explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner by awarding a punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect for the poor academic performance of the institution under her control. This charge was concerning the pass percentage in S.S.C. Public Examinations of Pathapatnam High School during the academic year 2004-2005. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, eventually, imposed the punishment of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect, through proceedings dated 22.03.2006. Later, on 03.10.2006, the 2nd respondent issued transfer-cum-reversion proceedings and posted the petitioner back as Post Graduate Teacher in Social Studies in the Upgraded Residential School, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam. On transfer, when the petitioner did not immediately report to the duty ostensibly owing to ill health, despite the receipt of the petitioner’s application for medical leave, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo, dated 10.11.2006. The charges are to the effect that the petitioner deliberately disobeyed the orders dated 03.10.2006 of the 2nd respondent, that she brought external influence on the authorities to get the said orders modified, and that when she was in-charge Principal of the Upgraded College, Pathapatnam, she has failed to improve the performance of the institution in S.S.C./Intermediate Public Examinations in the last two academic years. Yet again not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner in respect of the charge memo, the authorities appointed an enquiry officer, who, in course of time, submitted his report holding that all the three charges were proved. As a result, the 2nd respondent through proceedings, dated 11.02.2007, imposed the punishment of reversion on the petitioner. To be more specific, as a measure of punishment, the petitioner was reverted from Junior Lecturer to the post of Graduate Teacher by placing her at the bottom of the seniority list of the Graduate Teacher. Later, through proceedings, dated 17.03.2007, the 1st respondent suo motu confirmed the punishment awarded by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On prima facie appreciation of the material on record, when this Court suspended the order of punishment through an interim order, dated 09.04.2007, the petitioner once again had her position restored as Junior Lecturer in some other college through proceedings, dated 15.06.2007. As a matter of further development, it is brought on record that on 25.06.2008, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities to waive the punishment imposed on her on earlier occasion regarding the performance of the institute in SSC. Having accepted the plea of the petitioner, the authorities, on the very next day, issued proceedings waiving the said punishment of withholding three annual grade increments without cumulative effect. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that while the present writ petition was pending, on 13.06.2008, the respondent Society published the list of seniority of the Junior Lecturers, later declared the probation of the petitioner and, eventually, regularised her services as well. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the impugned order of punishment suffered from numerous irregularities – both substantive and procedural. He has contended that though an enquiry officer had been appointed and the petitioner submitted her explanation to the charge memo, no enquiry was conducted and no enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner before imposing the major penalty. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that even before any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, the petitioner had been reverted from Junior Lecturer to the post of Graduate Teacher and had further been transferred as a measure of punishment. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that even before any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, the petitioner had been reverted from Junior Lecturer to the post of Graduate Teacher and had further been transferred as a measure of punishment. Later, only to justify the reversion, which was without any basis, the respondent authorities went through the rituals of disciplinary proceedings and passed the impugned order, dated 11.02.2007, thus, reimposing the punishment of reversion. According to the learned counsel, it is nothing but justifying a grossly illegal act post factum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is said to have been punished under Rule 9 (viii) I & 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991 (“C.C.A. Rules”, for brevity), but there is no such Rule in the Statute. The learned counsel has further submitted that initially for the alleged poor academic performance, the petitioner has already been made to suffer by the authorities with the imposition of punishment of deferment of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Later, conducting another enquiry and imposing a fresh punishment is, contended the learned counsel, an abuse of process, bordering on double jeopardy. It is, in fact, imposition of two punishments for single misconduct. In the process, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rules 9 and 20 of the C.C.A. Rules, apart from the Executive Instructions, dated 19.06.1963. As a matter of justifying the conduct of the petitioner, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that the petitioner was initially posted as in-charge Principal of the recently upgraded Junior Collage, which was without any faculty. As such, the authorities could not have expected the petitioner to perform miracles without any supporting staff. Adverting to the transfer of the petitioner, before she could report at the place she had been transferred to, the petitioner, contended the learned counsel, had suddenly fallen ill and that in proof thereof, she even produced the medical certificate. The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court the subsequent developments pending consideration of the present writ petition. He has submitted that the authorities finalised the seniority list and have even confirmed the services of the petitioner as the Junior Lecturer. The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court the subsequent developments pending consideration of the present writ petition. He has submitted that the authorities finalised the seniority list and have even confirmed the services of the petitioner as the Junior Lecturer. As such, it is evident that the respondent authorities have realised the illegality committed by them and have restored the petitioner and confirmed the services as a matter of reparation. The learned counsel has eventually submitted that since the order impugned is void ab initio, as to the respondents’ illegality a declaration of this Court is a mere formality, and that it ought to be given under the circumstances explained by him, lest the petitioner should suffer immense prejudice to her career prospects. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. He has submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that she had been punished twice for the alleged misconduct. Elaborating further, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that the first punishment of deferment of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect pertains to the poor performance of the petitioner - rather poor performance of the school - for the academic year 2005. He has elaborated further saying that two charge memos were issued concerning a very dismal performance of the junior college under the petitioner’s control for the academic year 2005-2006. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that the second charge of bringing political influence to bear upon the authorities in the performance of having the orders of transfer modified or recalled stood conclusively proved. Her conduct, it is contended, is in violation of Rule 97 of the APSWREIS, 1987. In further elaboration of the said submission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that according to Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules, no employee shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his or her interest in respect of matters pertaining to the said employees’ services. It is further contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that initial transfer of the petitioner was not a reversion, but only a transfer simpliciter on administrative grounds. It is further contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that initial transfer of the petitioner was not a reversion, but only a transfer simpliciter on administrative grounds. Instead of obeying the order of transfer, the petitioner refused to join in the transfer post citing ill health only as a mere excuse. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has pointed out that the first punishment of deferment of annual increments was waived, as soon as the petitioner made representation in that regard. He has submitted that the authorities had been very kind and indulgent towards the petitioner in mitigating hardship alleged to have been inflicted on the petitioner. Summing up his submissions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. On the direction of this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the original record containing the enquiry proceedings relating to the petitioner. On perusal of the entire record as well as the case file produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it can be seen that three charges have been levelled against the petitioner and based on them the enquiry has been conducted. In the first place, the record does not reveal that the report of the enquiry officer had been served on the petitioner before seeking her explanation in response to the final show cause notice. To that extent, there is sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable opportunity to submit specific explanations to the findings of the enquiry officer, so as to persuade the disciplinary authority to take a different view. It is trite to state that the right to defend oneself in any departmental proceedings being a substantial one, its deprivation, needless to say, vitiates the very proceedings. Moving further, it is to be appreciated that before determining the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the gravity of the charges certainly plays a pivotal role. It is trite to state that the right to defend oneself in any departmental proceedings being a substantial one, its deprivation, needless to say, vitiates the very proceedings. Moving further, it is to be appreciated that before determining the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the gravity of the charges certainly plays a pivotal role. The first charge is as follows: "That Smt. T.Prabhavathi, JL (His)/In-charge Principal, Upgraded (DPIP) School, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, who was under orders of transfer to Upgraded School, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam District has failed to report at Upgraded School, Nakkapalli so far. Smt. T.Prabhavathi, JL (His) has disobeyed the orders of the Secretary, APSWREIS, Hyderabad and violated the Rule-2 of the conduct Rules of Employees of the APSWREIS. Hence the charge." It is contended by the respondent authorities that the petitioner was transferred as Post Graduate School Teacher to an upgraded school at Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam District, but the petitioner refused to obey the orders of transfer and did not join in the said school. In the reply thereto, concerning the first charge, the petitioner has explained that she had suddenly taken ill, and coupled with that, leaving the place in the middle of the academic year would have jeopardised the educational prospects of her son, who was facing SSC Public examination. Thus, on the twin grounds, the petitioner has pleaded with the authorities to take a lenient view. On this aspect, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities have regularized the leave treating that as sick leave, and as such, subsequently they cannot turn back and charge sheet the petitioner on the ground that there was disobedience on the part of the petitioner to an order of a superior officer. Be that as it may, since, apart from the cause of educational prospects of her son, the petitioner has stated, with proof not doubted, that she took suddenly ill and could not report at the transferee school, the explanation certainly takes away the sting from the disobedience, if any, on the part of the petitioner in complying with the orders of her superior officers. That apart, it is not a mere transfer but a transfer coupled with reversion without any notice. That apart, it is not a mere transfer but a transfer coupled with reversion without any notice. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that transfer was affected on administrative grounds, it is very patent from the face of the record that it was coupled with reversion which is very substantive in nature, having been inflicted on the petitioner without any enquiry, not even a notice. Accordingly, I am inclined to hold regarding the first charge, despite the respondents’ plea that the petitioner could have raised her objection with regard to reversion at the earliest point of time with the authorities, in the totality of the circumstances, that the petitioner’s conduct was not grossly disobedient of the orders of the authorities, especially as the authorities earlier chose to regularise her leave treating it as sick leave, placing reliance on the medical record submitted by the petitioner. The second charge is as follows: "That Smt. T.Prabhavathi, JL (His)/In-charge Principal, Upgraded (DPIP) School, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, who was under orders of transfer to Upgraded School, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam District has refused to comply with the order and brought external influence with a view to influence the decision and to get the order modified to suit at her interest and violated the Rule-22(1) of the conduct Rules of Employees of the APSWREIS, 1987. Hence the charge." The allegation is to the effect that the petitioner has brought to bear upon the authorities external influence to have the order of transfer modified to suit her interest. It is said to be in violation of Rule 22(1) of the Conduct Rules of Employees of APSWREIES. The record produced by the Assistant Government Pleader on the direction of this Court reveals that the Hon’ble Member of Legislative Assembly of the Constituency, to which the petitioner belongs, seems to have addressed a letter to the authorities to consider her case sympathetically. In my considered view, such a request from a representative of the people, who is a part of the establishment, cannot said to be any external influence sought to be brought to bear on the authorities. Assuming it were to be so, I do not see any record indicating whether any witness has been examined in support of the said charge. Assuming it were to be so, I do not see any record indicating whether any witness has been examined in support of the said charge. Given the gravity of the charge, if it were to be treated as any external influence, the authorities ought to have established it conclusively and the petitioner further ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. Thus it is very evident that the charge is held to have been proved on mere surmises based on an innocuous letter of recommendation, rather request, addressed by an Hon’ble Member of the Legislative Assembly to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, and nothing beyond. The third charge, which has some substance and upon which, in fact, the whole issue revolves, is to the following effect: "That Smt. T.Prabhavathi, JL (His)/In-charge Principal, Upgraded (DPIP) School, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, who was under orders of transfer to Upgraded School, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam District has failed to improve the performance of the institution in SSC/Inter Public Examinations since last two academic years when the result was the least in the state, in spite repeated instructions issued by the Society and violated the Rule–28 of the Conduct Rules of Employees of the APSWREIS, 1987. In the SSC and Intermediate Quarterly examination – 2006 the institution has got poor performance i.e., 67.31% and 56.14% respectively. Hence the charge." In response thereto, the petitioner has submitted an explanation to the effect that she was transferred to a very recently upgraded college without any faculty. As such, despite her best efforts, contended the learned counsel for petitioner, she could not improve the academic standards of the students overnight. It is his further contention that, she being the victim of circumstances, such as inadequate infrastructure and faculty, she should not have been made to suffer. This issue can be see from another angle, viz., that in the very preceding year, the petitioner had been charge sheeted on the ground that the results in SSC Public examination have also suffered and that lack of proper supervision on her part was said to be the cause. Though a punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed after a semblance of enquiry, later on the representation of the petitioner, the said punishment was waived. Though a punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed after a semblance of enquiry, later on the representation of the petitioner, the said punishment was waived. In a sense, by dividing the performance of the petitioner for 10th class and Intermediate for the same academic year, the authorities have framed another charge concerning Intermediate at a different point of time. It is also seen that there has not been much faculty available to improve the academic standards and it is not the case of the respondent authorities that despite the facilities made available along with sufficient staff, the petitioner failed to supervise properly. In the absence of a specific plea on the part of the respondent authorities, in my considered view, the consideration that has been shown concerning the results of the SSC public examination may have an impact on the present issue, i.e., the results in intermediate. Accordingly, I do hold that the charge was rightly held to have been proved, when there was no much factual basis. Adverting to the other aspects of the case, the punishment imposed was reversion from the post of Junior Lecturer to that of Post Graduate Teacher. It is said to have been imposed in terms of Rule 9(viii)(1) and (2) of CCA Rules. As it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statute, at least the book cited before me, does not reflect the rule at all. Having said that, it is required to be stated that once the authorities have got the necessary powers to impose such a punishment, on the simple premise that they have quoted a wring rule may not vitiate the proceedings. At any rate, explanation (v) of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules is as follows: "Reversion of a Government Servant, appointed on probation to any other service, grade or post, to his permanent service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation." Concerning the said Rule, there are executive instructions issued through memo No.928/63-3, dated 19.06.1963. The executive instructions clarify that once reduction to a lower rank has been imposed as a mode of punishment, the order should specify the period of reduction, unless the clear intention is that the reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period; where the period of reduction is specified, whether on the expiry of the period, the Government servant is to be promoted automatically to the post from which he was reduced; and whether on such re-promotion the Government servant will regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post, or higher time-scale which had been assigned to him prior to the imposition of the penalty. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of reversion suffers on account of the clarifications issued through the executive instructions. I am afraid I cannot persuade myself to accept the said contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any event, the record clearly reveals that first, the punishment was imposed, then the justification was supplied by the authorities. Under the guise of transferring on administrative grounds, the petitioner was made to suffer the reduction in rank without any enquiry, and later a post factum justification was supplied by way of disciplinary proceedings, the outcome of which is the reduction in rank inflicted on the petitioner. Thus, the proceedings cannot be stated to have been held in the manner expected under law. In any event, subsequent to filing of the writ petition, in the light of the interim directions given by this Court, the probation of the petitioner had been declared, her services were confirmed and her seniority recognized. Being conscious of the fact that any developments that have taken place pending the writ petition may not be taken to have any effect on the eventual adjudication of the lis, still under the totality of circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that, at this late hour of the day, i.e., after seven years, disregarding the whole position, especially in the face of the haphazard procedure adopted by the respondents, it would not be equitable to role back things to the prejudice of the petitioner. Though this Court was initially inclined towards remanding the matter to the authorities after setting aside the order impugned, on further consideration and upon perusal of the record, since the charges 1 and 2 could not be substantiated and the third charge has already been stood ameliorated by the respondents in the form of condonation of the petitioner’s conduct vis-a-vis SSC public examination, I do not see any substantial purpose being served on remand. The petitioner’s refusal to join at the transferred place in obedience with the orders of the higher authorities could be viewed as a minor misconduct despite her supplying the explanation of being ill. Thus, I propose to impose a minor punishment apart from setting aside the order impugned. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 11.02.2007 is hereby set aside, and in its place, it is further ordered that there shall be deferment of one annual increment dating back to the original date of punishment without cumulative effect, the rest of the service benefits remaining unaffected. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.