ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the form of Writ of Mandamus to declare that not revising or modifying the impugned proceedings R.C. No. 8646/2009-A3 (DPF1) dated 08.12.2016 of the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in view of the enquiry report submitted vide reference No. D/1429/2-17, dated 05.02.2018, of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to CCA & CS Rules and hence the impugned compulsory retirement order dated 08.12.2016 of the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from 08.12.2016 with all consequential benefits in view of the report submitted by the 4th and 5th respondent and pass such other order or orders..." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 16.10.1996 and he worked in Turangi Gram Panchayat during the financial years from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 and there he continued upto 11.05.2008. While so, on 02.10.2009, the 5th respondent issued show cause notice in Rc. No. 1846/09/A2, dated 02.10.2009 alleging that the Sarpanch, Turangi Gram Panchayat made a complaint to the 5th respondent that the Panchayat Secretary and staff of Turangi Gram Panchayat misused the amount pertaining to the house tax, and basing on that, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry, submitted enquiry report in Rc. No. 369/09/A1, dated 10.08.2009, as per the enquiry report, an amount of Rs. 41,66,973/- pertaining to house taxes and water taxes collected for the period from 1995-1996, 2008-2009 was misappropriated. Basing on the said enquiry report the petitioner was made responsible for the loss of Rs. 20,94,221/- towards the house taxes and water taxes collected for the said period. 4. No. 369/09/A1, dated 10.08.2009, as per the enquiry report, an amount of Rs. 41,66,973/- pertaining to house taxes and water taxes collected for the period from 1995-1996, 2008-2009 was misappropriated. Basing on the said enquiry report the petitioner was made responsible for the loss of Rs. 20,94,221/- towards the house taxes and water taxes collected for the said period. 4. He further submitted that on 29.10.2009, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the show case notice stating that he has not collected the house tax and water tax from the public, but the Bill Collectors have collected the amount, and whenever, he collected the amount, the same was handed over by the Bill Collectors to the Gram Panchayat, Turangi Gram Panchayat and the same was deposited in the Sub-Treasury Office. 5. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was transferred from Turangi Gram Panchayat to Nadukuru Gram Panchayat, on 10.09.2011, the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari District, Kakinada had issued a charge memo to the petitioner vide proceedings in Roc. No. 1846/2009-A1 framing one charge against him, alleging that, while working as a Junior Assistant, Turangi Gram Panchayat during the period from 22.11.2003 to 11.07.2008, the petitioner misappropriated the house tax amount to a tune of Rs. 18,10,320/- by colluding with the collection staff, huge revenue loss was caused to the public exchequer. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 01.12.2011 to the said charge memo. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Roc. No. 1846/2009/A1, dated 30.12.2011 appointing the 6th respondent i.e., Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry to conduct enquiry against the petitioner and others for the same charge relating to misappropriation of house tax amounts of Turangi Gram Panchayat, Kakinada, Rural Mandal. 6. Thereafter the 5th respondent issued memo in Roc. No. 1846/09-A1 dated 10.10.2012 communicating the enquiry report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry in Roc. No. 13/2012-A dated 16.03.2012 and directed to submit his explanation. In the said Memo, it is not known whether the enquiry report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry in Roc. No. 13/2012-A is a final report or a preliminary enquiry report. In view of the enquiry report, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry in Roc. No. 13/2012-A dated 16.03.2012 and directed to submit his explanation. In the said Memo, it is not known whether the enquiry report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry in Roc. No. 13/2012-A is a final report or a preliminary enquiry report. In view of the enquiry report, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry in Roc. No. 13/2012-A recorded the findings against the petitioner at page No. 7, wherein, it is stated that, it is not clearly mentioned, for which year, the amount was collected and the details of arrears bills were not shown by the petitioner during his tenure in Turangi Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioner stated in his explanation that he was not assigned the duty of collection of house tax as per the Office order issued by the Secretary, but he was directed to collect the taxes with regard to Blocks 1 to 5, and hence, the charge is proved. 7. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. No notice was served on the petitioner directing him to attend the enquiry and it was conducted in the absence of the petitioner. 8. Though an order was issued on 08.02.2005 to the petitioner for collection of house tax, on the same day, the Panchayat Secretary issued revised orders directing the petitioner to discharge his office duties only and that the petitioner cannot collect the house tax. In pursuance of the above direction, it is evident that the petitioner was not assigned the duty of collection of house taxes and water taxes and there by the question of handing over charge of bill books does not arise. 9. As per the material and the enquiry report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kakinada in Roc. No. 367/2009-A, the petitioner has derelicted his duties and the enquiry officer has not given finding with regard to the alleged misappropriation of panchayat funds. The Divisional Panchayat Officer has submitted a report in Roc. No. 13/2012/A, dated 16.03.2012 without considering the petitioner's explanation and even without examining any witnesses and without there being any evidence stating that the charge is being proved. It appears that due to political rivalry between the Sarpanch of Turangi Gram Panchayat and the petitioner, the Sarpanch made a complaint to enquire about the collection of house taxes for the financial years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 for an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. It appears that due to political rivalry between the Sarpanch of Turangi Gram Panchayat and the petitioner, the Sarpanch made a complaint to enquire about the collection of house taxes for the financial years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 for an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal. 10. While things stood thus, surprisingly another proceeding in Roc. No. 1846/2009-A7(R-3) dated 02.04.2016, was issued for recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,10,320/- from the petitioner alleging that he has misappropriated the house tax collection amounts during his tenure as Junior Assistant in Turangi Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent-District Collector issued show cause notice vide proceedings in Roc. No. 1846/2009-A7(R-3) dated 02.04.2016 for imposing major punishment of compulsory retirement and hence the entire proceedings are contrary to law and against the CCA (CCS) Rules. 11. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 28.01.2017. The 2nd respondent forwarded the appeal to the 3rd respondent for re-enquiry. The 3rd respondent directed the 5th respondent to conduct detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada as enquiry officer on 28.11.2017 and thereafter he submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on 15.2.2018 and thereafter the 3rd respondent forwarded the said report to the 2nd respondent on 25.09.2018. However, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders so far. 12. Smt. G. Sumati, learned Government Pleader for Services-II requested to issue a direction to the Commissioner of Panchayat to dispose of the appeal pending before him. 13. In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel for petitioner and is conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents to the request of petitioner, there is no need to adjudicate any other issue, and it would be suffice to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent-the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, to dispose of the appeal pending before him dated 02.12.2018 considering the report of the 3rd respondent dated 25.09.2018, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both counsel. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.