ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : The 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 CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to the Proceedings in Roc No 2656/2010/C1 dated 03.1. 2014 issued by the 2nd respondent examine the same and set aside the said proceedings after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice settled principles of service jurisprudence and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of Record Assistant with all attendant benefits by considering his representation dated 02.08.2019…..” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in Municipal Department as Record Assistant on compassionate grounds on 17.02.1995 and working as such to the utmost satisfaction of petitioner's superiors. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to E-Seva Centre at Gudivada w.e.f. 30.08.2003 as Accountant. While he was working on deputation in E-Seva, he was placed under suspension on 16.08.2007 issued by the 5th respondent herein on the ground of misappropriation of amounts of E.Seva and 4 charges were levelled against the petitioner to that effect. While so, again the 5th respondent has issued a Show Cause Notice in Roc.No.2656/2010/C1, dated 09.8.2011 to petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service by imposing Major Penalty under Rule-9 of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991 and as per G.O.Ms.No.25, GA (Ser-C) Dept., dated 03.02.2004 for the alleged irregularities committed by him at E-Seva Centre, Rajendranagar Branch, Gudivada. Then, petitioner sought for time for giving his explanation to the said show cause notice. The 5th respondent had filed VMA No.2148/2011 in O.A. No.7757/2011 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to vacate the Interim Orders passed in O.A.No.7757/2011 dated 09.08.2011. Thereafter, the said OA was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, by Order, dated 10.09.2014, directing that the departmental enquiry against petitioner in the O.A., need not wait till the conclusion of criminal trial before the criminal court. Thereafter, the said OA was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, by Order, dated 10.09.2014, directing that the departmental enquiry against petitioner in the O.A., need not wait till the conclusion of criminal trial before the criminal court. thereafter, the 2nd respondent arbitrarily removed petitioner from the post of Record Assistant by impugned Proceedings Roc.No.2656/2010/C1, dated in 03.12.2014 without appreciating facts and improper enquiry and without taking into consideration of available records and non application of mind and without giving him opportunity of hearing and without calling him to submit his comprehensive explanation which act is violative of principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.5 denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated that the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 03.12.2014 dismissed the Petitioner from service under the allegation was misappropriation of e-seva funds while working as Record Assistant and Accountant of e-seva. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the Respondent Authorities are not consider his representation dated 02.08.2019 requesting to reinstate into service as Record Assistant in this respondent Municipality. As his request the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstate into service because of acquittal in Criminal Cases. The petitioner never deposited remaining amount which was due of misappropriated amount. The Respondents are conducted enquiry in fair manner and charges were proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary action initiated against the Petitioner by giving the all opportunities and following the prescribed procedure under rule-9 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules-1991 on 03.12.2014. It is stated that the Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement even though he was acquittal from Criminal Cases. But in the present case the allegation against the petitioner is misappropriation of funds in mee-seva due to which the Criminal Case was registered. The Petitioner wife has given undertaking for payment of amount which was misappropriated by her husband. But so far no amount was paid by the Petitioner or his wife. It is further stated that the petitioner one way saying Enquiry report has not been served to him, but and another way stating that findings of the Enquiry Officer is bad and no evidence. In the present case the Enquiry Officer based on the facts and material on record conducted enquiry by giving all the reasonable opportunity and submitted a report to the competent authority. In the present case the Enquiry Officer based on the facts and material on record conducted enquiry by giving all the reasonable opportunity and submitted a report to the competent authority. Based on the Enquiry Report the disciplinary authority issued proceedings for dismissal from service. The Petitioner without paying the amount on behalf of his wife, Smt S.Hemalatha approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing W.P.MPNo.30373/2007 in W.P.No.23309/2007 on 05.11.2007 challenging the Recovery proceedings issued by the Tahsidar, Gudivada to escape from the payment of amount. It is also stated that the charges which were leveled against the petitioner are proved in the enquiry and the petitioner is liable to be punished. Thereby the respondent authority issued proceedings for dismissal from service. in the present case Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are total different. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, Urban Development and Sri K.Sreedhara Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that the respondents ought not have imposed the grave punishment of removal from service thereby deprive the petitioner of his livelihood. The respondents exceeded their jurisdiction and removed the petitioner from service without conducting roper enquiry, without sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on incorrect appreciation of facts and law and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents ought to have considered that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved, but the findings contrary thereto are not supported by any material evidence and as such the findings are perverse. The punishment imposed by the respondents is harsh and excessive being unwarranted and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges leveled against the petitioner, the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence and vitiated by non-application of mind to the relevant factors, material on record and as such enquiry report ought to have been rejected as being pervert in nature. He further submits that the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to law and hence liable to be set aside. He further submits that the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to law and hence liable to be set aside. Learned counsel mainly submits that the trial Court also acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused is entitled for ‘benefit of doubt’. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ram Lal versus State of Rajasthan and others, (2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 175, wherein it was held that : Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution..” 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioner, reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. He further submits that the Delinquent, Sri S. Jaya Krishna (Petitioner), the then Accountant, E-Seva Centre admitted himself, the misappropriation and gave undertaking on Rs.100/- Stamp Paper before Tahsildar and Mandal Execute Magistrate, Vijayawada (Urban) and committed to repay the entire amount within a week. But he remitted only an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- by way of Demand Draft (part amount of misappropriated figure) bearing No.322481, dated 08.08.2007 of UTI Bank, Gudivada. As per para No.23 of G.O.Ms.No.25, GAD, dated 03.02.2004 the minimum penalty to be imposed in all proven cases of misappropriation (in addition to the recovery of amount misappropriated) is dismissal from service. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, and the above petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the charges are proved in the enquiry and the Petitioner is liable to be punished. Thereby the respondent authority issued proceedings for dismissal from service. In the present case Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings are total different. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as there are no valid grounds. 8. He further submits that the charges are proved in the enquiry and the Petitioner is liable to be punished. Thereby the respondent authority issued proceedings for dismissal from service. In the present case Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings are total different. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as there are no valid grounds. 8. As seen from the impugned proceedings, dated 3.12.2014, wherein it was mentioned that, in exercise of the powers conferred on Chair person Municipal Council, Gudivada i.e,. the disciplinary authority hereby impose a major penalty of dismissal from service under Clause(X) of Rule-9 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 against Sri S.Jaya Krishna, Record Assitant, previously worked as Record Assistant Gudivada Municipality and deputed to work as Accountant E-seva Rajendra Nagar, Branch, Gudivada and presently working as Record Assistant Gudivada Municipality as the charges are proved against Sri S.Jaya Krishna , Record Assistant with regard to the Misappropriation of Rs.75,32,100/- of E-seva funds, in Gudivada. 9. As observed from the judgment in CC No.12 of 2014 (Old CC No.312/2010) on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada (for short “the trial Court”), in which, the petitioner/accused was acquitted, wherein the trial Court observed that, though the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P105, which is said to be statement of account pertaining to e-seva center, Rajendra Nagar, Gudivada and the alleged misappropriation was from 30.08.2003 the accused was deputed to work in e-seva centre from 01.09.2003 as per Ex.P103 however the prosecution has shown the misappropriation of the funds for the month of August 2003 in ex.P28. As per Ex.P103 the orders of deputation will come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2003, however, the prosecution has shown the misappropriation for the month of August 2003. Without any authenticated deputation/attachment for the month of August 2003 seems to be doubtful. The trial court also observed that the prosecution has not placed any authenticated document before the Court to show that the accused has forged the documents. Initially the prosecution has to establish entrustment, if the prosecution is able to establish the entrustment the burden shifts upon the accused to account for the entrustment, however though PWs.1 to 3 have deposed that there are acknowledgments pertaining to the entrustment and that Manager is equally responsible the prospection has not placed any documents before the court. Initially the prosecution has to establish entrustment, if the prosecution is able to establish the entrustment the burden shifts upon the accused to account for the entrustment, however though PWs.1 to 3 have deposed that there are acknowledgments pertaining to the entrustment and that Manager is equally responsible the prospection has not placed any documents before the court. though the prosecution has alleged that the demand draft bearing No.32360 was actually drawn from KDCC bank on 2.6.2004 for Rs.19,41,063/- but shown in the forged records as it was drawn on 22.5.2004 for Rs.29,61,063/- similarly another demand draft bearing number 033103 was actually drawn for Rs.8,91,000/- on 25.6.2007 from the bank, but shown in forged documents as it was drawn for Rs.18,26,000/- on 25.06.2007 and kept the demand drafts with accused, but the same were not filed and none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prospection have deposed about the same. 10. On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and on perusing the material on record, this Court is of the view that the charge against the petitioner was not just, “not proved”. In fact the charge even stood “disproved” by the very prosecution evidence. A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither “proved” nor “disproved” Further, on verifying the impugned proceedings, it clearly establish that, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings without examining any witness, but only on facts on material. This Court further observed that, the prosecution has not placed any authenticated to show that the accused has forged documents. Initially the prosecution to establish the entrustment, then the burden shifts on the accused to account for the entrustment, however, though the manager is equally responsible, prosecution has not placed any document with regard to alleged entrustment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view, inclined to allow the writ petition by declaring the impugned proceedings, as illegal. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings in Roc.No.2656/2010/C1, dated 3.12.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of Record Assistant with all attendant benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner and reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of Record Assistant with all attendant benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.