Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 275 (AP)

K. Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-04-26

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2021
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the impugned orders passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police-IV, APSP Battalion, Mangalagiri by proceedings No.Rc.No.10/OE/PR/2015-19, R.O.O.No.61/2019, dated 29.03.2019 and Order of the Commandant, 6th Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, dated 20.05.2019 and also proceedings of the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi Rc.No.A3/06/Appeal/2019, dated 30.09.2019 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was initially appointed as APSP Constable on 01.12.1979 and promoted as Head Constable in the year 1996 and further as ASI in the year 2012, since the date of appointment he has been discharging his duties with utmost devotion and dedication. 3. During his tenure, the petitioner was awarded with several awards including Seva Padak, Uttam Seva Padak, Anthrika Suraksha Seva Padak, Parakram Padak besides 28 cash awards and 34 Good Service Entries. Thus, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost dedication and unblemished service throughout 4. The petitioner was posted to Greyhounds in the year 1996 and continued in Greyhounds till October, 2014 i.e., for a period of two decades. While working in Greyhounds, he was kept as incharge of the dog squad from 2002 to 2014 continuously for 13 long years, at any point of time there was no complaint about the performance and his capabilities. 5. During the month of October, 2014 when the petitioner is giving intensive training to two dogs namely Ricky and Rocky, two Junior Commandos JC 2516 (K.Venkateswara Rao) and JC 5703 (K.Gopi) has manhandled dog Ricky, consequently there was neck injury and responsible for profuse bleeding of the dog and dog fell unconscious. Immediately, the fact was brought to the notice to the higher authorities and special treatment was administered to dog Rocky. To overcome the irregularity committed by them i.e., Junior Commandos appears to have approached the higher authorities and prejudiced their mind alleging that the petitioner has inflated the records regarding dog feed. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the so called allegation was made against the petitioner after a year and immediately after the injury to the dog. To avoid any action against the Junior Commandos, they successfully implicated the petitioner in the misconduct based on unfounded allegation. 6. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the so called allegation was made against the petitioner after a year and immediately after the injury to the dog. To avoid any action against the Junior Commandos, they successfully implicated the petitioner in the misconduct based on unfounded allegation. 6. Based on the complaints of Junior Commandos, a charge memo, dated 24.06.2015, for the issue relating to October, 2014, was issued calling upon this petitioner to submit his explanation. The enquiry officer has submitted his report on 06.07.2016 thereafter there was complete silence on the part of the authorities but for the intervention of the Judicial Forum, the present order would not have been issued at all. There was no explanation or any whisper by the authorities for sleeping over the matter on issue from July, 2016 to till March, 2019 for about 30 long months. On surrender to Parent Department from Greyhounds, he handed over the charge to his successors. The petitioner was intentionally subjected to harassment, knowing fully well that the petitioner was not at fault and it is only to harass him. 7. The authorities are directed Assistant Commandant (ASSALT) to submit a report against the petitioner. The preliminary Enquiry Officer, without proper verification of the records, has sent a report against the petitioner to appease to higher authority who already prejudiced against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension immediately on 15.05.2015 and subjected to humiliation of undergoing suspension for more than 10 months and he was reinstated into service only on 18.03.2016. 8. The petitioner has been lamented and requested the authorities that the preliminary enquiry report was motivated and without proper verification of the records. It is further submitted that the bill produced in October, 2014 was not sanctioned immediately, due to shortage of budget by the authorities, it is only in December, 2014, the bill was sanctioned. Without taking these three months into consideration, the petitioner was subjected to humiliation and untold misery. But for the mistake and arbitrary exercise of powers, the petitioner ought not to have subjected to disciplinary proceedings at all. Without taking these three months into consideration, the petitioner was subjected to humiliation and untold misery. But for the mistake and arbitrary exercise of powers, the petitioner ought not to have subjected to disciplinary proceedings at all. Therefore, the preliminary enquiry report submitted against this petitioner is motivated and a charge memo, dated 24.06.2015 was issued framing the charges against the petitioner by respondent No.3 i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police-III, APSP Battalion, Kurnool alleging that the petitioner has not accounted for 198.04 kgs of dog feed and inflated the figures of dog feed thereby guilty of misconduct. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, dated 07.07.2015 without looking into the explanation straight away an enquiry officer was appointed on 09.08.2015, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 06.07.2016 and accordingly a show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kakinada on 21.07.2016 inviting the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 14.08.2016 followed by another representation on 28.04.2018. As there was no response from the authorities, the petitioner was compelled to approach the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filling O.A.No.312 of 2019 against protracted and prolonged enquiry which was initiated based on charge memo Rc.No.10/OE/PR/2015, dated 24.06.2015. In the said Original Application, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal issued a direction to complete and pass final orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 9. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mangalagiri, even without reference to the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, passed the impugned order as if he has passed the same on his own volition, imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as ‘not on duty’. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the appellate authority, the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi. The Inspector General of Police by proceedings Rc.No.A3/06/Appeal/2019, dated 30.09.2019 went one step ahead and gave a finding that the petitioner has misappropriated the Government property and rejected the appeal. In fact there was no finding at all anywhere either in the charge memo, report of the enquiry officer or in the order imposing penalty regarding misappropriation of the Government funds. 10. In fact there was no finding at all anywhere either in the charge memo, report of the enquiry officer or in the order imposing penalty regarding misappropriation of the Government funds. 10. The enquiry report, dated 06.07.2016 would clearly demonstrate that no fault on the part of the petitioner. The charge leveled against the petitioner is that he has not accounted for 198.04 kgs of dog feed. The enquiry officer himself held that there was no manipulation of accounts at all, everything has been accounted for and it is the mistake committed by the preliminary enquiry officer, by recording specific findings, curiously the enquiry officer has arrived at a final conclusion that the charge is proved against the petitioner. As initially there no charge is framed and no material found to establish that the petitioner misappropriated the property of the Government, confirmation of the finding of the enquiry officer by the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi is illegal and arbitrary. Finally, it is requested to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.10/OE/PR/2015-19, R.O.O.No.61/2019, dated 29.03.2019 and also proceedings of the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi in Rc.No.A3/06/Appeal/2019, dated 30.09.2019. 11. The respondents filed counter denying the material allegations while admitting about working of this petitioner in A.P. Greyhounds and issuance of charge memo, conducting enquiry and calling for explanation of the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, while treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ and confirmation of the enquiry report by the Inspector General of Police. 12. The specific contention of the respondents is that the enquiry officer found this petitioner guilty for the alleged misconduct and that the disciplinary officer followed the procedure, recorded the findings on completion of the enquiry and similarly as per the directions of the appellate authority, the impugned orders are passed strictly in accordance with law and the evidence available on record, thus, the orders of authorities impugned in the writ petition cannot be set aside and requested to dismiss the writ petition. Along with the counter several documents were produced, which will be discussed at appropriate stage subject to relevancy. 13. Along with the counter several documents were produced, which will be discussed at appropriate stage subject to relevancy. 13. During hearing Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the enquiry officer found no material and found not guilty while holding that it is only on account of fault of preliminary enquiry officer/fact finding enquiry officer, found him guilty recording such finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The petitioner dissatisfied with the finding, preferred an appeal but more curiously the appellate authority, though no charge was framed, recorded a finding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of Government funds/property, which is not at all the case of the disciplinary authority at any stage and no charge was framed regarding misappropriation, thereby the enquiry report, final order passed imposing penalty and order in appeal are illegal, arbitrary and requested to set aside the same declaring as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 14. Whereas learned Government Pleader for Services-I supported the orders in all respects contending that the material available on record is sufficient to conclude that this petitioner committed such a grave misconduct/misappropriated the property of the Government causing substantial loss. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the interference with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is limited and this Court cannot interference with the findings, unless, they are perverse or without any evidence or tainted by any malafides and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition confirming the orders passed by the respondent authorities. 15. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arise for consideration is: “Whether the finding recorded by the enquiry officer against this petitioner and final orders passed by the appellate authority is substantiated by any material and by strictly adhering the procedure as per the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, if not, whether the passed orders impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside?” POINT: 16. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry officer recorded a clear finding that this petitioner is not liable for such misconduct but obviously for different reasons the petitioner was found guilty. 17. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry officer recorded a clear finding that this petitioner is not liable for such misconduct but obviously for different reasons the petitioner was found guilty. 17. In view of the specific contentions raised before this Court, it is necessary to extract the charges framed against this petitioner and the findings recorded by the appellate authority. The sole charge framed against this petitioner vide proceedings in C.No.19/Camp/PRs/2015-16, dated 06.07.2016 is as followed: “Article of Charge: The following article of charge has been framed against Sri K.Adinarayana formerly ARSI 1263/370 of 3rd Bn APSP, Kakinada now working in 6th Bn APSP, Mangalagiri that, while he was working in Greyhounds as incharge of the dog squad has not accounted for 198.04kgs of dog feed and inflated the figures of dog feed issued to the dogs on day to day basis and exhibited gross negligence of duty and misconduct and misbehavior.” 18. The case of the disciplinary authority in specific is that the petitioner, who is now working in 6th Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, has failed to perform his legitimate duty as incharge of the dog squad while he was working in Greyhounds. As per records available in the dog squad for the past one year, total purchase of dog feed was 1098 kgs from the period 27.12.2013 to 04.11.2014 and issued only 899.960 kgs of dog feed. The balance stock of 198.04 kgs dog feed has not accounted and inflated the figures of dog feed issued to the dogs on day to day basis and he has not maintained records, feed purchased, utilized and balance of dog feed belonging to dog squad, properly. At the time of his reliving on repatriation to his parent unit, he has not entered the stock balance of 198.04 kgs of dog feed, any Government property like articles and records to his successors. Based on those allegations a charge referred above was framed. 19. The case of the petitioner is that he was on deputation in Greyhounds from 3rd Battalion, APSP, Kakinada for about 18 years above and repatriated to 3rd Battalion on 13.10.2014 all of sudden without assigning any reason thereto by the squad commander, Greyhounds and also dogs equipment, food related material all registers and files to AAC, Sri T.G.N.Prasad. Due to sudden repatriation, he reported in his parent unit and handed over the charge. Due to sudden repatriation, he reported in his parent unit and handed over the charge. He was fully confident that he has maintained the records and the dog feed has been purchased in accordance with the norms existing in Greyhounds and issued properly and accounted for in the connected record and that he has performed his duty as incharge of the dog squad more than 9 years and he was neither pointed out by the officers in maintaining the dog squad unit registers nor misappropriated during his tenure as dog squad incharge for a long time and this issue has came to light only on his repatriation at the instance of third parties. The petitioner herein also explained the reason for the variance. Despite submission of explanation, the respondents dissatisfied with the explanation and ordered a regular departmental enquiry against this petitioner and during oral enquiry PWs.1 to 6 were examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority and finally recorded as finding as follows: “But, the PE officer has not discussed about the closing/opening balance of feed weather the feed is available or not in the store stock before the purchase of 306 kgs feed in the bill No.1012, dated 27.12.2013 as well as he was not verified the previous records from the beginning of the dog squad. The C.O., Sri K.Adinarayana, ARSI, 1263/370 has submitted the feed consumption statement to the PE officer stating that, from 27.12.2013 to 04.11.2014 purchased 1098 kgs feed and issued 1207.960 kgs and he was shown 109.960 kgs excess consumption without purchasing of feed and he was also not shown the closing/opening balance of stock whether the feed is available in the stock or not before purchasing of 306 kgs feed in the bill NO.1012, dated 27.12.2013 and his successor, Sri T.G.N.Prasad, AAC has stated that, as per the oral instructions of the higher officers while he was taking over the dog squad charge on 30.10.2014 from the ARSI only 11.760 kgs feed was available in the stock and the same was also not handed over to him by the ARSI. In this connection, due to contradictory statements of the above three officers who are the responsible for the maintain the dog squad and its related records as an enquiring authority I intervened and asked the AC QM (PE Officer) to show the shortage of feed on record as reported by him. In this connection, due to contradictory statements of the above three officers who are the responsible for the maintain the dog squad and its related records as an enquiring authority I intervened and asked the AC QM (PE Officer) to show the shortage of feed on record as reported by him. He was in confusion stage and could not explain properly. Therefore, I compelled to verify in brief the preceding year feed purchase made on 03.09.2013, agreeing with the contention of the AC QM though the period was not mentioned in the Article of Charge for enquiry. During the period from 03.09.2013 to 14.07.2014 as per the records available purchased the dog feed in five spells for 1422 kgs out of the same 950.760 kgs of dog feed was issued to the dogs, accordingly 471.240 kgs dog feed has to be available in the stock. Due to not maintaining of the records properly the entries which were made in the dog feed purchase, stock and issue registers are not matching with each other and there was no entries were found regarding that, after purchasing of the feed weather it is brought on credit basis or on cash immediately they have to take the feed in to stock register and include the same with the available feed closing balance of stock and the same procedure should have to be follow in the issue register with the opening balance of feed. But, the in-charges of dog squad are not followed the procedure and regularly they used to issue the feed which is available in the stock without following the proper procedure. Due to which, there is a chance to misappropriate the feed as stated by the dog handlers by issuing the less feed without following the quantity advised by the Veterinary Doctor by making false entries and the C.O., Sri K.Adinarayana, ARSI 1263/370 has confessed in his written statement that, he was held the dog squad charge from 16.06.2004 to 31.10.2014 more than ten years and his successor DAC, Sri Ganapathi has not handed over any records or registers of dog squad to him. Being, an experienced i/c of the independent unit i.e., dog squad it is his responsibility to properly maintain the records by updating the entries regarding purchases, stock and issues of the feed time to time under intimation to his superiors. Being, an experienced i/c of the independent unit i.e., dog squad it is his responsibility to properly maintain the records by updating the entries regarding purchases, stock and issues of the feed time to time under intimation to his superiors. If, his successor DAC, Sri Ganapathi has not handed over the charge he has to brought the issue to the notice of his superior officers for taking necessary action on the matter. But, he failed to do so and on his relieving from dog squad he was not handed over the property under his charge to his successor Sri T.G.N.Prasad, AAC properly.” 20. As seen from the conclusions arrived by the enquiry officer based on the sole charge and findings thereon, it is clear that the statements of witnesses are contradictory to one another who are responsible for maintaining the dog squad and its related records, as an enquiry authority, he interfered and asked the AC/QM (PE Officer) to show the shortage of feed on record as reported by him but he was in confusion stage and could not explain properly. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to verify in brief the preceding year feed purchase made on 03.09.2013, agreed the contention of the AC/QM though the period was not mentioned in the Article of Charge for enquiry. During the period from 03.09.2013 to 14.07.2014 as per the records available, purchased the dog feed of 1422 kgs in five spells, out of the same 950.760 kgs of dog feed was issued to the dogs, accordingly, 471.240 kgs dog feed should be available in the godown and book entries. Due to not maintaining the records properly the entries which were made in the dog feed purchase, stock and issue registers are not matching and there were no entries found regarding that, after purchase of the feed whether it is brought on credit basis or on cash basis. However, at the end it is concluded that as the petitioner was holding incharge of the dog squad for 10 years, his predecessor Deputy Assistant Commandant Ganapathi did not hand over any records or registers of dog squad to him being an experienced incharge of independent unit of dog squad. It is his responsibility and to maintain records properly by making entries and purchase of stock and issue of the dog feed from time to time under intimation to his superior. It is his responsibility and to maintain records properly by making entries and purchase of stock and issue of the dog feed from time to time under intimation to his superior. If his predecessor Deputy or Assistant Commandant Ganapathi has not entered the stock, he has to bring the same to the notice of the superior officer for taking necessary action in the matter but failed to do so and even at the time of leaving dog squad, he has not handed over the property under his charge to his successor Sri T.G.N.Prasad, AAC properly. 21. The finding of the enquiry officer is not clear but the enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner did not maintain stock properly and he did not inform about the failure of his predecessor in office Sri K.Ganapathi regarding entries in the registers concerned. The said fact would constitute misconduct or not is again a question that is not required to be decided in this case. 22. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal is preferred before the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi, but in the appeal, a different finding was recorded and a cryptic order was passed recording the following finding:- “I have gone through the entire O.E.PR file, appeal petition and conducted records. The contents mentioned in the appeal are not convincing. The delinquency was clearly proved in the departmental oral enquiry. He being an in-charge of the dog squad had deliberately failed to maintain the stock registers properly and failed to hand over the records and other materials belonging to dog squad to his successor. Thus, he misappropriated the Government property. Moreover, the appeal petition is time barred. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is appropriate and suitable for the lapse done by the appellant. As such, his appeal petition is considered and rejected accordingly.” 23. The appellate authority though required to examine the evidence and reason for such conclusion, passed a cryptic order even without looking into the material available on record appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the order of the enquiry authority and the confirmation by the appellate authority are not based on any evidence to substantiate the alleged misappropriation. Misappropriation is different from negligence. Misconduct is defined under Rule 3 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Therefore, the order of the enquiry authority and the confirmation by the appellate authority are not based on any evidence to substantiate the alleged misappropriation. Misappropriation is different from negligence. Misconduct is defined under Rule 3 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Though no charge is framed against this petitioner regarding misappropriation of Government property, the appellate authority recorded a different finding other than the charge. Since the charge is limited to exhibiting gross negligence in discharging his duties, it is not the case of the disciplinary authority that this petitioner has misappropriated the Government property. The finding recorded by the appellate authority is not inconsonance with the sole charge framed against this petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that when the enquiry was ordered and the charges are not substantiated by any material, the Court can interfere with such order and set aside the enquiry report, if findings are contrary to law. 24. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I would contend that the Court cannot lightly interfere with the enquiry in view of the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. This Court cannot interfere with the fact finding but the Court can interfere, if there are clear procedural violations in conducting enquiry while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in departmental proceedings. In State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 the full Bench of the Apex Court held that the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding a departmental enquiry against the public servants and similarly in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 ; Bank of India Vs. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 and Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 . 26. Following the principles laid in the above judgments, the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. N.Ganga Raj in Civil Appeal No.8071 of 2014 on 14.02.2020 set aside the report of the enquiry officer and its confirmation by the appellate authority. Canara Bank, (2003) 3 SCC 583 . 26. Following the principles laid in the above judgments, the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. N.Ganga Raj in Civil Appeal No.8071 of 2014 on 14.02.2020 set aside the report of the enquiry officer and its confirmation by the appellate authority. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Court has to examine whether the enquiry was conducted strictly in adherence with the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 and 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and this view is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others, (2006) SCC (L&S) 909 wherein the Court held that a charge was framed for a particular misconduct, he cannot be held guilty for any other misconduct after conducting an enquiry, inferences drawn by the enquiry officer regarding misutilization/misappropriation by the appellant delinquent though there is no specific charge was framed in respect thereof. The findings are that the removal of the officer is not sustainable and directed to reinstate the same. In the same judgment the standard of proof and the question of a scope of interference was discussed finally. 27. The Court further held that merely because the evidence did not support the department personnel would not mean that their statement is false if they depose falsely they should cross-examine, at the same time, in the judges report supra, it is made clear that when the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, the Court can interfere with inconsistent finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court now I shall examine whether the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with law. 28. Rule 20 is so elaborate and that repetition of the whole procedure is unnecessary here. It is however designed to see that not merely a reasonable opportunity but a very effective opportunity is to be given to the civil servant to prove his innocence. 28. Rule 20 is so elaborate and that repetition of the whole procedure is unnecessary here. It is however designed to see that not merely a reasonable opportunity but a very effective opportunity is to be given to the civil servant to prove his innocence. The salient features are that – (1) the articles of charge with statement of imputations, list of documents and witnesses proposed to be examined have to be communicated to the delinquent officer and he should be asked to submit a written statement of defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person (2) a presenting officer has to be appointed unless the disciplinary authority itself inquires into the charges; (3) in the enquiry, witnesses shall be examined by the presenting officer and may be cross-examined by the Government servant; (4) the Government servant can take the assistance of another government servant in service or retired or where the presenting officer appointed is a legal practitioner he can also take the assistance of a legal practitioner; (5) the Government servant can himself also produce witnesses on his behalf and they may be cross-examined by the presenting officer; (6) the Government servant shall be entitled to inspect the documents on which the Articles of Charges are based and if he applies in writing for the supply of the copies of the statement of witnesses; (7) after the conclusion of the enquiry, a report shall be prepared with the particulars stated in sub-rule (23) of Rule 20. 29. Above is in short the procedure prescribed in Rule 20 in order to afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent Government employee to prove innocence. The rule however is very elaborate even to recount all the salient features here, only the important framework is given. 30. Reasonable opportunity as contemplated by Rule 20 consists of various steps: (1) the framing of charges; (2) the appointment of a presenting officer; (3) the conduct of enquiry proper by examining witnesses and cross-examining them on both sides; (4) supply of documents necessary to the delinquent officer to effectively put up his defence; (5) the report of the enquiry officer 31. It is not possible to deal with all these steps which form part of reasonable opportunity in one spell. It is not possible to deal with all these steps which form part of reasonable opportunity in one spell. An attempt is made to broadly explain the scope of the expression ‘reasonable opportunity’ while the various steps it contains are dealt with in separate chapters. 32. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules does not contemplate judicial consideration of each and every contention raised by the petitioner in his written statement. Overall consideration is suffice to order a regular departmental enquiry, if the appointing authority concludes prima facie that there is material to proceed against this petitioner for the misconduct. Therefore, failure of the enquiry officer to consider the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner objectively is not a ground to vitiate the entire enquiry and therefore, on this ground, this Court cannot set-aside the enquiry initiated against this petitioner and final order passed by the first respondent and affirmed by the second respondent. 33. The second ground raised by this petitioner is that, enquiry was in total violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the Rules. However, the respondents contended that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules and placed on record the entire enquiry record before this Court. 34. Undisputedly, a charge memo was issued calling upon this petitioner to submit written statement of defence as per Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 20 of the Rules, which is the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Later, on consideration of explanation of this petitioner, the first respondent ordered departmental enquiry appointing the enquiry officer by exercising power under Rule 20(6) of the Rules. Till appointment of enquiry officer, I find no irregularity or violation of any procedure. But, there are several steps during conduct of regular departmental enquiry. This Court has to examine various steps at different stages to be followed by an Inquiry Officer and if, no enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 is conducted, this Court can interfere with such enquiry. 35. Rule 20 of the Rules, prescribes entirely a new procedure for conducting an enquiry by the disciplinary authority where it is proposed to impose a major penalty prescribed under the said Rules. 36. 35. Rule 20 of the Rules, prescribes entirely a new procedure for conducting an enquiry by the disciplinary authority where it is proposed to impose a major penalty prescribed under the said Rules. 36. Some of the salient features of the rule are given below for immediate guidance of the disciplinary authority/enquiry authority: (i) For imposition of a major penalty, an enquiry should be conducted either under the CCA Rules, or the Public Servant (Enquiry Act). (ii) The disciplinary authority may itself conduct the enquiry or appoint an inquiry authority to conduct the enquiry. (iii) The disciplinary authority itself can prepare or cause the preparation of the articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour. (iv) The articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct and list of witnesses and documents should be served on the Government servant by the disciplinary authority or at its instance and the Government servant should be required to submit the statement of defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (v) The disciplinary authority on receipt of statement of defence or where no statement of defence is received within the stipulated time, conduct the enquiry itself or appoint an inquiry authority to do so. 37. It may be noted from the above that as per the old rules, the inquiry officer used to be in the picture right from the start of the disciplinary proceedings, whereas under the new rules he comes into picture only when the disciplinary authority, after considering the statement of defence submitted by the Government servants, decides to appoint an Inquiry Authority for conducting an inquiry. 38. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the disciplinary authorities appointing the Inquiry Officers straight away on receipt of a complaint against a Government servant without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 20(3),(4) the new A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 in the first instance. Such a course of action evidently which is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the new rules is liable to be set aside when questioned in a Court of Law. It is, therefore, impressed on the disciplinary authorities that they should invariably follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20(3), (4) of the CCA Rules, 1991 before they consider the appointment of an inquiry authority. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure will be viewed seriously. 39. It is, therefore, impressed on the disciplinary authorities that they should invariably follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20(3), (4) of the CCA Rules, 1991 before they consider the appointment of an inquiry authority. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure will be viewed seriously. 39. As per the provision of the new CCA Rules, articles of charges, etc., will have to be prepared or got prepared by the disciplinary authority. Needless to say that the articles of charge form the basis of enquiry. Therefore utmost care and diligence is required to be taken while drawing up the articles of charges, as any defect or deficiency in the articles of charges will ultimately lead to vitiation of the entire proceedings. The disciplinary authority/inquiry authority should see that the charges are specific without any ambiguity and are fully supported by documentary evidence. 40. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and Collectors are requested to strictly follow the above procedure prescribed in the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance. Here, the respondents substantially complied Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 20. When the petitioner herein denied the charges by submitting his written statement of defence, the procedure to be followed is prescribed under Sub-Rules (8) to (10) of Rule 20. After receiving the documents mentioned under sub-rule (7) (a), the Inquiring Authority shall issue a notice in writing to the Presenting Officer and also to the Government Servant to appear before him on such day and at such time and place specified by him which shall not exceed ten days. Thus, a ten days advance notice shall be issued to the Government servant in the departmental enquiry while serving a notice to the Presenting Officer when a regular departmental enquiry is ordered to impose major penalty. But, in the present case, summary of the entire file is produced before this Court, I find no material about compliance of Rule 20(8). Apart from that, Rule 20(9) prescribed the procedure for appearance of the Delinquent Officer before the Enquiry Authority. 41. But, in the present case, summary of the entire file is produced before this Court, I find no material about compliance of Rule 20(8). Apart from that, Rule 20(9) prescribed the procedure for appearance of the Delinquent Officer before the Enquiry Authority. 41. When a notice was served, under Sub-Rule (8) and on appearance, the Presenting Officer and Government and Government Servant shall appear before the Inquiring Authority on the date fixed under Sub-Rule (8). If the Government Servant informs the Inquiring Authority that he wishes to inspect the documents mentioned in Sub-Rule (3) for the purpose of preparing his defence, the Inquiring Authority shall order that he may inspect the documents within five days and the Presenting Officer shall arrange for the inspection accordingly. The Inquiring Authority shall call upon the Government Servant whether he admits the genuineness of any of the document copies of which have been furnished to him and if he admits the genuineness of any document it may be taken as evidence without any proof by the concerned witness. 42. The Inquiring Authority shall adjourn the case for inquiry to a date not exceeding ten days for production of evidence and require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charges. Thus, Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 20 mandates recording of evidence and requires the Presenting Officer to produce such evidence which he may proposes to prove the Articles of Charges framed against the Delinquent Officer or Government Servant. 43. According to Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 20, on the dates fixed for recording the evidence, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The evidence shall be recorded as far as possible on day-to-day basis till the evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority is completed. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and they may be cross examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to reexamine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross examined, but not on any new matter without the permission of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to reexamine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross examined, but not on any new matter without the permission of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. But, this procedure under Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 20 has not been complied, which is mandatory. Recording of evidence is only to prove a particular charge when the Government Servant/Delinquent Officer denied the charges and it is one of the methods to prove the charge, affording an opportunity to disprove the testimony of the witnesses by cross-examining the witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer by the Government Servant or on his behalf. 44. Sub-Rule (11) of Rule 20 further mandates that, if it appears necessary before the closure of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness. When the case for the Disciplinary Authority is closed, the Government Servant shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing as he may prefer and to submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf for which purpose the case may be adjourned to a date not exceeding five days. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case, a copy of the statement of defence and the list of defence witness may be provided to the presenting officer, if any, appointed. The case shall be adjourned to a date not exceeding ten days for production of defence evidence. (vide Sub-Rule (12) of Rule 20). The evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shall then be produced. The Government Servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government Servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross examination, re-examination and examination by the Inquiring Authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the Disciplinary Authority. (vide Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 20). The Government Servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government Servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross examination, re-examination and examination by the Inquiring Authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the Disciplinary Authority. (vide Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 20). The Inquiring Authority may after the Government Servant closes his case and shall, if the Government Servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, for purpose of enabling the Government Servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (vide Sub-Rule (14) of Rule 20). The mandatory requirement under Sub-Rule (14) of Rule 20 is akin to examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and it is mandatory. 45. In the present case, witnesses appears to have examined, but no opportunity to examine or to produce witness by the Delinquent Officer/Government Servant himself was afforded consequently, non-examination of the Government Servant/petitioner herein under Sub-Rule (14) of Rule 20 is sufficient to vitiate the enquiry, when record does not disclose the compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 20. The Inquiry Officer did not mark any documents though the petitioner herein/government servant denied the charges stoutly. No list of witnesses or documents is also annexed to the report, without affording any opportunity to the government servant. Therefore, failure to follow the mandatory procedure specified under Rule 20 of the Rules vitiates the entire procedure. The duty of the Enquiry Officer is to fix the date and time of the enquiry and give due intimation thereof to the delinquent as also to witnesses. The enquiry officer may also choose the venue of the enquiry, if necessary, ascertaining the convenience of the delinquent. But it does not mean that the choosing of the venue of the enquiry suo motu by the enquiry officer would vitiate the enquiry and such choosing does not violate the principles of natural justice. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to where the enquiry against as employee is to be held and the only thing to be seen is whether the employee is in any way denied the opportunity of defending himself because the enquiry officer suo motu chooses the venue of the enquiry. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to where the enquiry against as employee is to be held and the only thing to be seen is whether the employee is in any way denied the opportunity of defending himself because the enquiry officer suo motu chooses the venue of the enquiry. (vide Bibhuti Bhushan Paul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 Cal.29) The Enquiry Officer may also ask the delinquent to cite the defence witnesses and when the delinquent cites the defence witnesses, the enquiry officer has to issue summons to such witnesses, if they are under his administrative control. At the appointed time he has to conduct the enquiry, which includes the recording of statements, allowing the witnesses to be cross-examined, admitting documents into evidence etc. But the enquiry officer would not be justified in looking into records which are unspecified and relying on them in its report without intimating to the delinquent as to what records he had looked into. Such a defect would vitiate the proceedings. (vide Manmatha Nath Ghosh vs Director of Public Instruction, Govt. of West Bengal, AIR 1958 Cal.49) The Enquiry Officer should act in unbiased mind, supply the petitioner the relevant material documents and must allow him to cross examine departmental witnesses and if these opportunities are denied, it would vitiate the inquiry. (vide Shiraguppi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 1977 (2) SLR 836 (Ker.)) 46. Thus, from the law declared by the Courts in the judgments referred supra, failure to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20, which is based on principles of natural justice and failure to follow the mandatory procedure amounts to denial of an opportunity and it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The only legal principles with which inquiring authorities are primarily concerned are the principles of natural justice which basically are that (i) the charged officer should be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case; (ii) evidence against him should be taken in his presence; (iii) he should have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced in support of the charges and (iv) he should be given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and documents. All other laws of procedure have been relaxed for departmental enquiries. All other laws of procedure have been relaxed for departmental enquiries. Even the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, except in so far as they refer to the general principles of natural justice already referred to, are not applicable to a departmental enquiry. The principles of natural justice are already incorporated in the CCA Rules and as long as the Inquiring Authority follows these rules, particularly all the 23 sub-rules of Rule 20, which lay down step by step, stage by stage procedure, neither the disciplinary authority who has appointed him nor the law courts are likely to find fault with the Inquiry. Thus, compliance of the mandatory procedure by the Inquiry Officer is only to afford opportunity at every stage to the Government Servant to defend himself and failure to follow such procedure would cause serious prejudice and it amounts to denial of an opportunity, thereby, such enquiry report submitted in violation of the procedure under Rule 20 is vitiated by material irregularities. As discussed above, in the present case, the Inquiry Officer failed to comply the mandatory procedure prescribed from Sub-Rules (1) to (23) in substance and such failure would vitiate the entire proceedings. 47. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that, the disciplinary authority issued notice to the petitioner in compliance of Rule 20, calling for his written representation under Rule 21, to take action on receipt of report, penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed, thereby, it is not an irregularity. No doubt, a notice was issued and imposed penalty. When the Inquiry Officer failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20, mere issuance of a notice under Rule 21 for imposing major penalty prescribed under Rule 9 is not sufficient to impose such punishment/major penalty upon the Government Servant/petitioner herein. As such, the penalty imposed against the petitioner by the third respondent is illegal. As discussed above, Inquiry Report is illegal and not in compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules. On this ground, the Inquiry Report is liable to be set-aside, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. As a sequel of setting aside Inquiry Report, the penalty imposed against this petitioner i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is liable to be set aside. 48. On this ground, the Inquiry Report is liable to be set-aside, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. As a sequel of setting aside Inquiry Report, the penalty imposed against this petitioner i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is liable to be set aside. 48. A perusal of the enquiry report I find that the enquiry officer did not follow the procedure prescribed under various Sub-Rules of Rule 20 referred above, more particularly, marking of documents and examination of delinquent officer, the petitioner herein explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him in the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority as the requirement under Sub-Rule (14) of Rule 20 is akin to examination of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and it is mandatory. Thus, the enquiry officer failed to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. On this ground alone the various proceedings impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside as the enquiry has not strictly inconsonance with the Rules under APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 referred above. Therefore, the procedure followed by the enquiry officer and findings recorded therein and its confirmation by the appellate authority by cryptic order, without adverting to the charge is illegal and contrary to law. Though the petitioner was charged for gross negligence in maintaining records and failed to account for dog feed of 198.04 kgs and the enquiry officer held that the charge is proved against this petitioner but in appeal, the appellate authority/Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi held him liable for different charge of misappropriation. There is lot of difference between gross negligence in maintaining records and misappropriation. Therefore, the finding of the appellate authority without framing any charges is contrary to the principles laid down in M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others referred above. 49. There is lot of difference between gross negligence in maintaining records and misappropriation. Therefore, the finding of the appellate authority without framing any charges is contrary to the principles laid down in M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others referred above. 49. At the same time, it is contended that the punishment imposed against this petitioner is illegal as on higher side thereby the penalty imposed against this petitioner is liable to be set aside and placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court reported in Union of India vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 wherein the Court held that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, the charge should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on the conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of the fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. Even if the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case. An enquiry should be conducted in strict adherence to the procedure and strictly applying principles of natural justice. Even if the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case. An enquiry should be conducted in strict adherence to the procedure and strictly applying principles of natural justice. Here in this case the enquiry officer did not mark any documents on behalf of the disciplinary authority or defense and after closure of the evidence, the disciplinary authority, an opportunity though required to be afforded to this petitioner to adduce evidence calling for defense, no such procedure and if the petitioner herein is not intended to examine himself as a witness before the enquiry officer, examine him under Sub-Rule 14 of Rule 20 explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him, such procedure was not followed prima facie, therefore, the enquiry conducted against this petitioner is totally in violation of Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and on this ground the Court can interfere with such departmental enquiry and final order passed thereon in view of the law declared by the Apex Court stated above. 50. The material on record does not disclose that the enquiry officer strictly adhere rule prescribed under Rule 20 APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and at the same time, the appellate authority finds the petitioner guilty for different charge i.e., a charge other than the charge framed against the petitioner, other than the charge framed against this petitioner and consequently the final order, imposing penalty is also illegal, therefore, all these impugned proceedings challenged in the writ petition are liable to be set aside, while remanding the matter to the enquiry officer for conducting disciplinary enquiry afresh strictly adhering the procedure as enshrined under Rule 20 APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. 51. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.10/OE/PR/2015-19, R.O.O.No.61/2019, dated 29.03.2019 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police-IV, APSP Battalion, Mangalagiri and Order of the Commandant, 6th Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, dated 20.05.2019 and also proceedings in Rc.No.A3/06/Appeal/2019, dated 30.09.2019 of the Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Amaravathi, declaring them as contrary to law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the enquiry is remitted back to the Deputy Inspector General of Police-IV, APSP Battalions, Kakinada, who is the enquiry authority for conducting enquiry afresh within three months strictly adhering to Rules 20 and 21 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. There shall be no order as to costs. 52. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.