ORDER : The petitioner challenges the punishment imposed by the 4th respondent dated 07.10.2005 and subsequent orders confirming the same dated 27.02.2006. 2. The petitioner joined as an Attender in the year 1984. The petitioner was later promoted as Line Inspector in the year 1999. While the petitioner was working as Line Inspector, he was placed under suspension on the ground that the petitioner took Rs.40,000/-from one Sri.Ambalam Muttu Swamy Reddy of Medu Village, Changalpat District of Tamilnadu for providing unauthorized power connection to the agricultural field motor. Similarly, the petitioner was charged in collecting an amount of Rs.12,000/-from Balaramireddy and Rs.13,500/-from Dora Swamy Reddy for supply of unauthorized power connection. 3. A charge sheet dated 08.11.2004 was issued and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the charge. After enquiry it was held that out of three charges, first charge was proved and other charges were partially proved. 4. Basing on the enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued proceedings dated 27.08.2005 proposing to imposing the punishment of reversion to the cadre of Lineman and treating the period of suspension as dies-non. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 12.09.2005. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of five ranks in seniority of line inspector cadre and treating the period of suspension as dies-non vide proceedings dated 07.10.2005. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide letter dated 07.05.2008. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent and the same was also rejected vide order dated 02.01.2009. 6. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry was conducted without giving an ample opportunity to the petitioner and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no reasons assigned in the order under challenge justifying the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted by the I Additional Sessions Court, Nellore in CC.No.17 of 2005. The representations of the petitioner were rejected and the respondents have revised the seniority of the petitioner by placing the petitioner at S.No.17. The petitioner submits that he was promoted to the post of Senior Line Inspector on 30.06.2008. 7. The petitioner claims that by virtue of the punishment the petitioner suffered his seniority to several juniors who were promoted. 8. The petitioner submits that he was promoted to the post of Senior Line Inspector on 30.06.2008. 7. The petitioner claims that by virtue of the punishment the petitioner suffered his seniority to several juniors who were promoted. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the disciplinary proceedings are independent of the criminal proceedings. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not reinstated on account of his acquittal in the criminal case. It is also denied that the enquiry officer is not competent to enquire into the allegations. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the Superintendent Engineer is competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer. It is also submitted that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. As such, a blanket statement that the enquiry was conducted without following principles of natural justice cannot be justified. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority has dealt the case with empathy and after having considered the issue in totality has imposed the punishment of reduction of seniority by five ranks and instead of the proposed punishment of reversion of cadre. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted based on the seniority as Senior Line Inspector whenever the promotions were awarded. The learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the procedure adopted for conducting of enquiry, as such prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on following judgment Ch.Appala Reddy Vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company, A.P.Limited, 2005 (3) ALT 632 , this Court held that appointment of an Enquiry Officer even before issuance of show cause notice or charge sheet is bad in law. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 11. The judgment referred would not be applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.08.2004 and on 04.10.2004 an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into allegations against the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed under Regulation 10(2) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by APSPDCL. The enquiry officer was required frame appropriate and specific charges with reference to the material on record and conduct a detailed enquiry. In the case on hand, it was a specific case that the petitioner was collecting money from farmers for extending unauthorized power supply. The enquiry officer was required frame appropriate and specific charges with reference to the material on record and conduct a detailed enquiry. In the case on hand, it was a specific case that the petitioner was collecting money from farmers for extending unauthorized power supply. On receipt of the information about the misconduct of an employee the petitioner was placed under suspension and a show cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit the explanation. The show cause notice is issued by the enquiry officer who was required to conduct the enquiry. This administrative act of the respondent cannot be found fault. 12. The other ground of the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case is concerned, the same would not have any impact on the outcome of merits in the writ petition. As seen from the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the acquittal of petitioner is on account of non-examination of the concerned witnesses. It is evident that the police have not recorded the statements of any farmers. Apart from the complainant a VRO and Investigating Officer were examined. The Investigation done by the police was not exhaustive as seen from the list of witnesses whose evidence has been adduced before the trial Court. It is also a well settled law that the disciplinary proceedings are independent of the criminal cases and the sweep and scope of a disciplinary proceeding is much wider. 13. It is also not denied that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Lineman when the next opportunity for promotion arose. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the punishment under challenge. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.