ORDER : This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief : “....to issue an writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in file No.5079/SERP/HRII/KRISHNA, DATED 4.1.2014 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to 3.11 of the employees terms and conditions and pass.....” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Master Book Keeper in the month of August, 2003 in the 2nd respondent agency, which is under the direct control of the Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioner was promoted as Community Coordinator on 19.02.2008 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Project Manager/Mandal Coordination on 03.06.2011 and since then, he has been discharging his duties in the said post. The 2nd respondent issued an order of the petitioner’s duty chart in which, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner have to coordinate with cluster coordination and mobilize the SHG in the Mandal level. The petitioner has to monitor and ensure the effective implementation of all Community Resource Persons strategies to the Mandal. The petitioner was not assigned the duty of maintenance of accounts or drawal of amounts from the banks as per the petitioner’s duty chart. There is a separate wing to maintain the accounts, namely an accountant, Assistant Project Manager (Finance), District Project Manager (Finance). 3. The second petitioner herein was appointed as Community Disabled Worker on 08.12.2006 and was promoted thereafter as District Micro Finance groups on 03.06.2011 and since then, the 2nd petitioner is also working in the said post. As per the Job Chart of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd petitioner’s primary responsibility is to ensure that all books of accounts of mandal Samakya regarding APRIGP, MPSP, CIF, General, other funds, Abhaya Hastam, BMCU, Gender FCC and other accounts in operation at Mandal Samakya are updated and are kept ready at any point of time. She has been entrusted with the above nature of duties in the Challapalli Cluster, which consists of four (4) mandals namely Challapalli, Ghantasala, Movva and Machilipatnam. 4. While the matter being so, both the petitioners have been representing to the Project Director that the Accountant is not at all handing over the books and not even showing the account books every month. In spite of the same, the authorities kept quite on the said representations. 4. While the matter being so, both the petitioners have been representing to the Project Director that the Accountant is not at all handing over the books and not even showing the account books every month. In spite of the same, the authorities kept quite on the said representations. The Assistant Project Manager (Finance) and District Project Manager (Finance) were also having a job chart in which it is clearly mentioned that they should take minimum 15 days tour to Mandal Samakya to verify the books of accounts of Mandal Samakya and that they have to get periodic information from the Community based organizers i.e., bank balances, outstanding advances, receipts and payments account and any other information as required by them. They have to facilitate the audit process by coordinating with District Micro Finance group and monthly generation of cash book, general ledger, advance ledger and receipts and payment account Indira Kranthi Padam and get approval from the project director. 5. As per the job chart of the Assistant Project Manager (Finance) and District Project Manager (Finance), it is clear that they are responsible to maintain the marginal level accounts by coordinating with the accountant. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 28.10.2013 complaining about the Mandal accountant for misutilisation of funds. On receiving the said representation, the 3rd respondent appointed Additional Project Director, IKP, Vijayawada on 29.10.2013 as an enquiry officer to enquire into the finance irregularities brought to the notice of the APA, Machilipatnam. The Additional Project Director conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report on 30.10.2013 stating that the accountant has misappropriated an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- and accountant’s statement was also recorded by the enquiry officer wherein the accountant has agreed and admitted that he alone is responsible for the misappropriation of the amount and had agreed to remit back the amount. 6. Even before the enquiry report reached the 3rd respondent office, a memo was issued to the petitioners, directing them to submit an explanation within 3 days for the alleged misappropriation committed by the MS accountant. Since the 1st petitioner was assisting the Additional Project Director in the enquiry, he did not submit the explanation. But, however, the 2nd petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 02.11.2013. Since the 1st petitioner was assisting the Additional Project Director in the enquiry, he did not submit the explanation. But, however, the 2nd petitioner has submitted an explanation dated 02.11.2013. While so, the District Collector, Krishna issued proceedings in RC No.1914/2013, dated 11.011.2013, placing both the petitioners under suspension pending enquiry as per 8.2(d) of the terms and conditions of the SERP Employment of the Employees 2009. Thereafter, without even conducting an enquiry, the petitioners were removed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 04.01.2014 from the service. Challenging the said removal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 7. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner. But, however, have stated that the petitioners were terminated as per rule 8.7 of terms and conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, 2009 vide letter No: 5079/SERP/HRII/Krishna/2013, dated 04.01.2014 for their failure in supervising the transaction made by the Mandal Samakya Accountant Sri. Moka Jeevan Babu for an amount of Rs.51.15 lakhs and further stated that as per condition 8.9 of the terms and conditions of SERP Employee, any employee of SERP may prefer an appeal to the appellant authority within three (3) months after receipt of the orders of the Chief Executive Officer, SERP. But, in this case, instead of approaching the appellant authority, the petitioners have straight away approached this Court. 8. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court 3.11 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, which reads as follows : “i. The appointing authority may remove an employee during his/her employment for sufficient and reasonable cause by giving such person a show cause notice and to provide an opportunity to offer his /her explanation. ii. The person so removed shall have the right to appeal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order to such authority as is prescribed under these Terms and conditions of the employees.” 9. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 04.01.2014, it is clear that an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the alleged offences, misappropriation committed by Sri. Moka Jeevan Babu, MS Accountant, who, during the course of enquiry before the enquiry officer has admitted that he has misused MS Funds of Rs.40 lakhs. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 04.01.2014, it is clear that an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the alleged offences, misappropriation committed by Sri. Moka Jeevan Babu, MS Accountant, who, during the course of enquiry before the enquiry officer has admitted that he has misused MS Funds of Rs.40 lakhs. But, in spite of the same, the enquiry officer has stated that MMS Office bearers who have signed the blank cheques and handed over to MS accountant i.e., the petitioners herein are equally responsible for the misappropriation of MS funds as they have failed to supervise the transactions made by MS accountant of such huge amounts and have straight away passed the order under rule 8.7 of the terms and conditions of SCRP employees, without giving any notice nor conducting any enquiry against the petitioner for the alleged offences. 10. On a perusal of the report of the enquiry officer dated 30.10.2013, it is clear that Sri. Moka Jeevan Babu himself has admitted that he has misused MS Funds to a tune of Rs.40 lakhs and on such admission, the enquiry officer has requested the Project Director to take necessary action for conduct of fresh audit by the Government/Co-operate department/ L.F. audit department since 2008 to detect the fraud in the accountants of the MMS office, Machilipatnam. But, however, the 1st respondent, vide order dated 11.11.2013, suspended the petitioners and removed the petitioners from employment vide impugned proceedings dated 04.01.2014, which should not have been done. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this Court that under similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court has allowed a writ petition (W.P.No.2092 of 2015), wherein the impugned order was passed by exercising powers under condition 8.7 of terms and conditions of SCRP Employees, 2009. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this Court that under similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court has allowed a writ petition (W.P.No.2092 of 2015), wherein the impugned order was passed by exercising powers under condition 8.7 of terms and conditions of SCRP Employees, 2009. The relevant condition is extracted below : “8.7 Special procedure in certain cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in terms and conditions where any penalty is imposed on an Employee of the SERP on the ground of conduct which has led to his/her conviction on a criminal charge or where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Terms and Conditions the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such order there on as it deems fit.” 12. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Condition No.8.7 of Terms and Conditions of employment of SERP Employees, 2009, where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these terms and conditions, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such an order thereon as it deems fit. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as seen from the impugned order, the disciplinary authority has not at all recorded in its order that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in Terms and Conditions and as such, the order is being made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this condition is akin to the proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2020) 3 SCC 153 ; and Ved Mitter Gill Vs. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others, (2015) 8 SCC 86 ; and also the judgment of a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Indian Immunologicals Limited Vs. Narendra Agrawal, W.A.No.1540 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018. 13. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh and others, (2015) 8 SCC 86 ; and also the judgment of a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Indian Immunologicals Limited Vs. Narendra Agrawal, W.A.No.1540 of 2018 dated 14.12.2018. 13. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 04.01.2014, the disciplinary authority has not at all recorded its satisfaction with regard to difficulty and impracticability to hold an inquiry against the petitioners. As seen from condition No.8.8 of Terms and Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, 2009, it is with regard to waiver of procedural aspects in Condition Nos.8.5 and 8.6, where there is a difficulty in observing fully the requirements of these Terms and Conditions, however without causing any injustice to the employee of the SERP charged. So far as Condition 8.7 is concerned, it is mandatory on the part of the appellate authority to record satisfaction in writing about impracticability to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in Terms and Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, 2009. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Indian Immunologicals Limited, the Division Bench of the composite High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 362 , wherein it is pointed out that the decision to dispense with the enquiry under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India cannot rest solely on the Ipse dixit of the concerned authority and it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on objective facts and is not the outcome of whim and caprice. The Supreme Court further held that it must be shown that there was independent material to justify dispensing with the enquiry. 14. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh (4th supra), this Court is of the considered view that the disciplinary authority utterly failed to follow Condition No.8.7 of Terms and Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, 2009, which is similar to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. 15. It is also very curious to note as to how the petitioners can be held accountable when the representation dated 28.10.2013 was given by the 1st petitioner complaining that Sri Moka Jeevan Babu, MS Accountant is mis-conducting himself because of political connections. 16. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 04.04.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent is set-aside. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking action against the petitioners in accordance with law and the competent authority shall take appropriate decision after objectively considering the entire record. 17. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.