JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Heard Sri T. V. S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader, Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records leading upto and inclusive of the orders in O.A.No.76/2003 dt.2.11.2005 passed by the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, as A. R. Constable with all consequential benefits such as back wages, seniority and continuity of service etc., by allowing the O.A.No.76 of 2003 as prayed for and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The petitioner was appointed as Armed Reserve constable in August 1990 and was working in Guntur District in District Armed Reserve. 4. He was placed under suspension on 29.01.1992 on certain allegations. Subsequently, he was given a charge memo dated 25.03.1992 framing two charges as under: “i) Exhibited gross high handedness, negligence of duty and reprehensible conduct in picking up quarrel with PC 1798 on 16.11.1991 on the police picket in Ramapuram (V) and scaring HC 611 Y. Prasad Rao to kill him with a loaded Musket No.188, in case of sending any report to higher officers and running away from the Picket and thereby absconding without leave or permission from 16.11.1991 to 29.11.1991 at 18.00 hrs. ii) Reprehensible conduct in absenting from duty without leave or permission from 24.09.1991 to 12.10.1991.” 5. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted the report dated 09.04.1994 and vide proceedings D.C.No.385/95 / C.No.9/PR/92, dated 03.01.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority / Superintendent of Police, Guntur, the petitioner was removed from service. His suspension period was treated as ‘not duty’. 6. The petitioner’s case is that he filed explanation to the charge memo. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted the report dated 09.04.1994 and vide proceedings D.C.No.385/95 / C.No.9/PR/92, dated 03.01.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority / Superintendent of Police, Guntur, the petitioner was removed from service. His suspension period was treated as ‘not duty’. 6. The petitioner’s case is that he filed explanation to the charge memo. His further case is that the Enquiry Officer submitted report of ‘charges proved’ on the chief examination of the witnesses which was not put to cross examination and without considering any explanation to the enquiry officer’s report, the order of removal was passed on incorrect facts that the petitioner did not submit reply/explanation. His case is that the enquiry was conducted and the order of removal was passed in violation of Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991. 7. The petitioner filed appeal challenging the order of removal dated 03.01.1995, inter alia, on the aforesaid contentions. The appellate authority / Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur, vide Order C.No.79/Appl/95, dated 29.11.1995, allowed the appeal. The Office Establishment (OE) record was remitted to the Enquiry Officer to give one opportunity to the delinquent to submit his written final explanation and consider the same on merits and resubmit the minutes / report. It was further provided that the delinquent will file explanation within 7 days and the appointing authority will take action on receipt of the minutes afresh. 8. Thus, the matter was remitted to the enquiry officer and upon his minutes, disciplinary authority had to take fresh decision. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after such remand, no order was passed by the appointing authority / disciplinary authority. 10. However, the appellate authority / Deputy Inspector General of Police, again by order being C.No.79/Appl/95, dated 28.08.1996, decided the appeal and rejected the same, confirming the order of removal, though the appeal had already been considered and decided on 29.11.1995 in petitioner’s favour. 11. The petitioner’s revision was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police, vide Rc.No.1822/T3/97, dated 23.12.1997. 12. Challenging these orders, the petitioner filed O.A.No.76 of 2003, which was dismissed on 02.11.2005. 13. These orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 14. 11. The petitioner’s revision was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police, vide Rc.No.1822/T3/97, dated 23.12.1997. 12. Challenging these orders, the petitioner filed O.A.No.76 of 2003, which was dismissed on 02.11.2005. 13. These orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner’s appeal against the order of removal dated 03.01.1995 was decided on 28.11.1995 and the matter was remitted to the Enquiry Officer, and the disciplinary authority, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have passed fresh order, rejecting the appeal on 28.08.1996. He submits that it was incumbent for the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders as per law pursuant to the order of the appellate authority dated 28.11.1995, but any fresh order was not passed. He submits that this aspect was taken before the Tribunal, but without considering the same, the Tribunal had dismissed the O.A. He submits that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal again, as there was no appeal pending. Consequently, the appellate order and all subsequent orders are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 15. Sri G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader, Services-I, does not dispute the aforesaid facts, but submits that the order of removal was passed on proof of the charge by the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, no fault can be found in dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, revision and the O.A. 16. In view of the submissions advanced, as also from the material on record, the appellate order dated 29.11.1995 is undisputed. There is specific averment to the above effect in the writ petition which has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Copy of order dated 29.11.1995 is also on record. The order of removal ceased to exist, after the appellate authority remitted the matter for enquiry and order afresh. Undisputedly, fresh order was not passed by the disciplinary authority. 17. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner’s appeal was decided in his favour by order dated 28.11.1995 remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, it was for the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, in terms of the order of remand. 17. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner’s appeal was decided in his favour by order dated 28.11.1995 remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, it was for the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, in terms of the order of remand. The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass fresh order dated 28.08.1996 now dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of penalty and that too without referring to its earlier order dated 28.11.1995, either in ignorance thereof or ignoring the same. The appellate order dated 28.08.1996 is without jurisdiction. 18. On our specific query to the learned Govt. Pleader as to whether the appellate authority has power to reopen and review its own order and pass another order afresh, he submits that the appellate authority has no such power under the Rules. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, the order passed in revision and the order passed by the Tribunal can also not be sustained. 20. Learned Govt. Pleader, however, submits that four more references were pending against the petitioner, but consequent upon, the order of removal, those four references were ordered to be closed vide the same order of removal dated 03.01.1995, providing further that they will be reopened as and when the delinquent is reinstated into service on an appeal. He submits that pursuant to the first appellate order dated 28.11.1995, the disciplinary authority would now have also to consider all the other four references. 21. A perusal of the order of removal dated 03.01.1995 makes it evident that the petitioner / delinquent was facing other four O.Es which were directed to be closed, but providing that they will be reopened as and when the delinquent is reinstated into service on an appeal. 22. In the result, the impugned orders dated 28.08.1996, 23.12.1997 and 02.11.2005 are quashed. 23. The Writ Petition is allowed with following further directions: i. The disciplinary authority shall proceed to complete and decide the proceedings pursuant to the charge memo dated 25.03.1992, as per the direction of the appellate authority in the order dated 29.11.1995, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 (three) months; ii. The four other references shall also be decided, as expeditiously as possible, by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. iii. The four other references shall also be decided, as expeditiously as possible, by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. iii. The petitioner remained under suspension till the order of his removal. In view of the subsequent appellate order, he was out of service. Considering the aforesaid as also the seriousness of the charge, the competent authority shall have liberty to place the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings which shall abide by the result of such proceedings. 24. It is clarified that we have not entered into the merits of the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority, revisional authority and the Tribunal, which have been set aside, only on the ground of the appellate order dated 29.11.1995. The authorities have to take decision without being influenced by quashing of the impugned orders. 25. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.