ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "To issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.A3/101/PR/03/COMDT-VJA/APSPF/2020/D.No.1829 dated 22.09.2020 of the 4th respondent removal from the service of the petitioner basing on the Report of Fresh/Second enquiry dated 25.08.2020 in view of the proceedings in R.C.No.A3/101/PR/02/COMDTVJA/APSPF/2020/D.No.629 dated 13.04.2020 of the 4th respondent even though all the disciplinary proceedings cancelled against the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and violative of the articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India and contrary to the APCCA rules apart from the Judgments from the Apex Court and set aside the same and consequentially to suspend the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.3/101/PR/03/COMDTVJA/APSPF/2020/D.No.1825 dated 22.09.2020 and pass such other orders." 2. The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order of removal of the petitioner herein from service, vide order dated 22.09.2020 in R.C.No.3/101/PR/03/COMDT-VJA/APSPF/2020/D.No.1825, on the ground that fresh/de novo enquiry is not permissible under Rule 20(11)(c)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 3. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he (B.Anjaneyulu @ B.Anandh Kumar, H.C.1533) conspired with one M.Ravi Babu, Ex.CT-2459 (Constable of APSPF), who was retired compulsorily in the said post and D.Raja Babu, Ex.HC- 672, APSPF, to eliminate Sri M.Sankara Rao, Assistant Commandant, SPF, Tirupati. The said M.Sankara Rao has lodged a complaint with Alipiri Police Station on 13.05.2017 alleging that the petitioner herein has threatened him with dire consequences through voice recording and after getting permission from the Court, a case in Crime No.115 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 15.05.2017. Later, a charge sheet was issued by the inquiring authority with the following charge, as follows: "That the said Sri B.Ananda Kumar, HC 1533 while working at TSSPF unit, High Court, Hyderabad, made a conversation over his mobile phone (Mobile No.9440206615) with Sri M.Ravi Babu, Ex CT 2459 (mobile No.9490942459) who was compulsorily retired from service and conspired a plan to kill the senior officers of APSPF i.e., Sri B.V.Rami Reddy the then Commandant, now DIG SPF, Sri D.N.A.Basha, Commandant and Sri M.Sankara Rao, Asst. Commandant. Commandant. Further he has instructed Sri M.Ravi Babu, Ex-CT, SPF to circulate this conversation among all SPF members in a disparate attempt to create disaffection in the armed force. Sri M.Sankara Rao, Asst. Commandant, lodged a complaint along with a CD containing his mobile phone conversation with the said Ex CT-2459 Sri M.Ravi Babu at Alipiri PS, Tirupathi on 13.05.2017. Accordingly, a criminal case in Cr.No.115/2017, U/s 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC dated: 15.05.2017 was registered against him at Alipir P.S. Tirupathi urban Police District wherein he was marked as Accused-1 (A1). Thus, he involved in criminal activities by hatching a plan to assassinate superior officer of SPF and attempted to spread disaffection in this disciplined armed force SPF. By the above act, he was exhibited gross misconduct, which is un-becoming of Government servant thereby violating Rule-3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. " 4. The inquiring authority has conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report, vide proceedings dated 22.04.2019, holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved and he was found guilty of the charge and the enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 13.04.2020, has ordered for fresh enquiry as per the CC&A Rules and on receiving the FSL Report, directed the inquiring authority to issue a charge memo afresh and call for explanation from the charged officer. 5. As per the proceedings dated 13.04.2020, the matter was referred to the inquiring authority and the similar charge as indicated above was framed against the petitioner herein. Again a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner herein made a detailed explanation to the show cause notice and stated that there is no provision under Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, to conduct fresh enquiry or re-enquiry and a fresh enquiry cannot be conducted due to lack of any statutory provision and also further stated that the criminal case was filed against him was initially referred as a mistake of fact and therefore no enquiry can be conducted against the petitioner herein for the very same charge. 6. 6. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein, a second enquiry was conducted under due procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the CC&A Rules and the charge was proved against the petitioner herein beyond reasonable doubt and the inquiring authority has forwarded the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 22.09.2020, has passed orders removing the petitioner herein from service with immediate effect under Rule 9(ix) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 7. The said order is impugned in the present Writ Petition on the ground that there is no such provision of de novo enquiry is contemplated under the CC&A Rules to conduct fresh/de novo enquiry. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that Rule 20(11)(c)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, says that the inquiring authority shall give the government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. 9. In order to answer the said issue, it is necessary to extract Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which is extracted as follows: "21. Action on the inquiry report: - (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 20 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favorable or not to the Government servant. (3) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in the sub-rules (4) and (5) below. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22, make an order imposing such penalty: (5) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.R.Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1971 SC 1447 . In the said judgment, the punishment was set aside on the ground that no proper inquiry was conducted and some serious defects have been crept into the inquiry and for not examining some important witnesses who were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary proceedings were set aside. That is not the issue in the present case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-M.D. Coal India Ltd., and others v. Ananta Saha and others, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and in UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694, for the proposition that it was not permissible for the inquiring authority/disciplinary authority to proceed on the basis of the charge sheet issued earlier, the question of initiating a fresh enquiry without giving a fresh charge sheet would not arise and that the Hon’ble Apex Court eventually held that after considering the number of judgments, it allowed the authorities to proceed with the enquiry. 12. 12. In the present case, a fresh show cause notice was issued and called for explanation from the petitioner/delinquent and he submitted his explanation and a detailed enquiry was conducted. Hence, the proposition relied on by the petitioner herein is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 13. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, filed counter and denied all the assertions made in the writ affidavit and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and another v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563 , Union of India and others v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2022 SCC Online SC 56, Union of India and others v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 SCC Online SC 284 and Union of India and others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, (2022) 1 SCC 373 for the proposition that Constitutional Courts while exercising power of judicial review do not assume the role of the appellate authority, writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the Court cannot set aside penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. 14. In Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down some principles, which are extracted as follows: "19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court. 19.4. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the codelinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co- delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned employee and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable." 15. After considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is that the respondent-authorities cannot conduct a fresh de novo enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. As per the rule as extracted above under sub-clause (1) of Rule 21 of the said Rules. Rule 21 of CCA rules is two-fold under sub-rule (1): that the employer has an unfettered right to order a fresh enquiry if he is not satisfied with the enquiry report is based on a thorough misconception of law. If the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the enquiry, it may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further enquiry and report. Under sub-clause (2) if the disciplinary authority has intended to take decision forward a copy of the inquiry report to the government servant calling for explanation on receiving such explanation the disciplinary authority may take its own decision for imposing punishment. Under sub-clause (2) if the disciplinary authority has intended to take decision forward a copy of the inquiry report to the government servant calling for explanation on receiving such explanation the disciplinary authority may take its own decision for imposing punishment. On conjoint reading of both the sub-clauses it is implicit that the disciplinary authority can remit to the enquiry officer a fresh, if it is dissatisfied with findings of the enquiry authority or else it can impose punishment calling explanation from the government servant by forwarding the enquiry report. 16. Under the said Rule, a second or fresh enquiry can be ordered by following procedure under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 17. In the present case, a fresh show cause notice was issued by the authorities to the delinquent/petitioner herein and the petitioner herein has offered his explanation and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the charge against the petitioner/delinquent was proved and in the first report, a reason was given for ordering of the second and fresh enquiry. A fresh enquiry was ordered on receiving of the FSL report. On the said premise, a fresh enquiry was ordered. As per the provision contemplated, a reason was assigned to conduct fresh enquiry and it is permissible under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, to conduct fresh enquiry and this Court is fortified with the judgment of this Court in K.Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Guntur District and another, (2017) 5 ALT 498 (DB) = (2017) 6 ALD 218 (DB). In the said judgment, at paragraph No.4, the Court observed that the Government has got the power and privilege to order fresh enquiry and that the view of the Tribunal that the employer has an unfettered right to order a fresh enquiry if he is not satisfied with the enquiry report is based on a thorough misconception of law. Relying on the provisions of Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, it is the only case of the petitioner herein that the respondents cannot conduct de novo or fresh enquiry, as per Rule 21 of the Rules and the authority has power to conduct fresh enquiry. Relying on the provisions of Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, it is the only case of the petitioner herein that the respondents cannot conduct de novo or fresh enquiry, as per Rule 21 of the Rules and the authority has power to conduct fresh enquiry. The judgments relied on by the respondents are not applicable to the present facts of the case, for the query raised by the petitioner herein. 18. In view of Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, I found no flaw in the order and I do not see any reason to meddle with the order which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.