ORDER: R.Raghunandan Rao, J. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, Learned senior counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had been appointed as Record Assistant in the year 1987 and was promoted as Superintendent in the year 2014. He was working as such in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, Kakinada District, till he was dismissed from service on 21.06.2021. 3. The petitioner was issued a charge Memo, dated 07.08.2019, leveling 7 charges against him. They are – Charge No.1 That the petitioner used to touch and hold the hands of the complainant while she signs the attendance register. Charge No.2 That the petitioner on one Saturday forcibly caught hold the hand of the complainant and pulled her towards the petitioner due to which the complainant got nail scratches over her left hand and the said acts are witnessed by the Court staff and one advocate. Charge No.3 The petitioner has threatened the complainant on the same day evening over telephone. Charge No.4 That the petitioner threatened the side attender Gowri Shankar and made him to go on leave. Charge No.5 That the petitioner tried to foist a false case of theft against the complainant along with one Attender by name Ratnamala. Charge No.6 That the petitioner threatened the complainant that the petitioner would involve the husband of the complainant in a criminal with the aid of the police using the number of the Auto rikshaw run by her husband. Charge No.7 That the petitioner intentionally avoided to make entries in the service register of the complainant and also postponed the annual increments for two months. 4. These charges came to be framed against the petitioner on the basis of a report, dated 27-07-2019, forwarded by the Chairman, Internal Complaints Committee to the disciplinary authority, in pursuance of an enquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee. After receipt of the show cause notice and charge memo, the petitioner filed his statement of defense in which he is said to have highlighted the violations committed by the Internal Complaints Committee through its enquiry. 5. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, appointed an enquiry officer and presenting officer, on 17.12.2019. The enquiry was conducted between January and April, 2021, during which, witnesses on behalf of prosecution had been examined. 5. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, appointed an enquiry officer and presenting officer, on 17.12.2019. The enquiry was conducted between January and April, 2021, during which, witnesses on behalf of prosecution had been examined. The petitioner contends that he was not permitted to bring his defense witnesses. The enquiring authority submitted his report, on 03.04.2021, holding that charges 1 to 3 are proved and charges 4 to 7 are not proved. The petitioner was served with the enquiry report, along with a notice, calling upon the petitioner to submit his written representation in relation to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his written explanation. However, the 2 nd respondent is said to have issued orders on 21.06.2021, dismissing the petitioner from service. 6. The petitioner had thereupon filed an appeal, before the High Court, on 12.09.2021 and the same came to be dismissed, on 22.07.2022. The petitioner also contends that the appeal order does not contain any reasons. 7. It is necessary to set out the facts in the present case, before assessing the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner.?On 04.08.2017, a complaint was given by a lady employee, to the District Judge, Rajahmundry. In this complaint, it was stated that the petitioner herein had been harassing the complainant. She stated that the petitioner was holding her hands and asking her for a kiss, whenever she went to sign the attendance register, which would be on the desk of the petitioner. She also stated that on one day, the petitioner had forcibly held her hand and in the struggle to free herself, her left hand had suffered nail scratches of the petitioner. She states that this incident was occurred on a Saturday, when Court staff were around. She is said to have gone out to a tree near the Bar room where she started crying and showed her injuries to all the persons there. On their advise, she is said to have approached the Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, with her complaint. The Magistrate is said to have advised her to put it in writing and consequently, she had prepared the written complaint and placed it before the District Judge. This complaint also stated that the petitioner had called her on the evening of this incident and threatened to ensure that her increments would not be granted and that cases would be filed against her husband, who was an auto driver.? 8. This complaint also stated that the petitioner had called her on the evening of this incident and threatened to ensure that her increments would not be granted and that cases would be filed against her husband, who was an auto driver.? 8. The complaint also mentioned that the harassment of the petitioner was observed by her colleague Sri Gouri Shankar, who was ensuring that she could sign the register before the petitioner attended the office and the petitioner had scolded Sri Gouri Shankar for helping her to sign even before the petitioner came to the office. She also contended that an allegation of theft was made against her by the petitioner along with Smt. Ratnamala on the ground that the cell phone of Smt. Ratnamala was missing. 9. This complaint was forwarded to the Internal Complaints Committee, which issued a report dated 27.07.2019, after an internal enquiry. The statement of the complainant, was recorded on 30.12.2017, by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry as part of this internal enquiry. 10. In the statement recorded before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, the complainant stated that on 22.05.2017, the petitioner had sent the process server Gouri Shankar to her while she was working at the residence of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, on the ground that she had not signed the attendance register. The petitioner is then said to have caught hold of her hand and pressed her breast when she was signing the attendance register and also asked about his previous proposal to spend a night with him. The complainant is then said to have raised an outcry and came outside, at which time advocates were present and saw the complainant crying. The complainant stated that nail scratches were inflicted on her right hand, when the petitioner had caught hold of her hand and she tried to take her hand back. She also stated that she had earlier worked in the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, in the year 2013 when the petitioner was also working as Superintendent in that place. She stated that even though he used to harass her by asking her to satisfy her sexual lust and hold her hand and pressed her breast. She also stated that she had earlier worked in the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, in the year 2013 when the petitioner was also working as Superintendent in that place. She stated that even though he used to harass her by asking her to satisfy her sexual lust and hold her hand and pressed her breast. She stated that the petitioner had threatened that he will stop her increments as she has not accepted his request and then she had given a complaint to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. 11. Thereafter, the Articles of charges were framed and the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry. In the course of the enquiry, five witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution while no witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner. 12. The defense of the petitioner was that the father of the complainant was his colleague and had died while in service. Thereafter, compassionate appointment was sought for the brother of the complainant. However, the brother of the complainant passed away while the application was pending. After the death of her brother, the complainant and her mother approached the petitioner to help them in getting compassionate appointment for the complainant. The petitioner assisted the complainant in preparing the application. Initially, there were no differences between the complainant as well as the petitioner. However, the petitioner, on account of his association with the father of the complainant had sought to warn and counsel the complainant against certain relationships she had with another colleague though both of them were married to different people. The complainant is said to have reacted adversely against the petitioner saying that he had no business in interfering with her life. The petitioner is also said to have tried to counsel the complainant when other complaints of missing goods etc., started surfacing and the complainant had developed grudge against the petitioner for counseling her not to conduct herself in that manner. The petitioner also states that the complainant had owed money to his wife which was not being paid properly. 13. The petitioner, after stating that the complaint against the petitioner had been filed solely on account of the grudge developed by the complainant, also pointed out to the factual inaccuracies in the case set up by the complainant. The petitioner also states that the complainant had owed money to his wife which was not being paid properly. 13. The petitioner, after stating that the complaint against the petitioner had been filed solely on account of the grudge developed by the complainant, also pointed out to the factual inaccuracies in the case set up by the complainant. He would submit that the original complaint to the Principal District Judge did not contain any details of the date of the alleged incidents or otherwise. The petitioner in the original complaint contended that there were scratches on her left hand while in the statement recorded before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge she stated that there were injuries on her right hand. 14. The petitioner had also got marked a rough sketch of the layout of the office room of the Superintendent and the surrounding rooms. The petitioner contends that the room of the Superintendent has four entrances from which various persons move about and that a major part of the wall on one side has a window which is kept open for air and the entire room is visible to any person passing by the office room of the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that one of the neighbouring rooms was the advocate clerks association and that all the advocates‘ clerks go through his room to reach the association room. He would submit that the question of forcibly holding the hand of the complainant or touch any part of her body, over a period of time, continuously, is highly unlikely and that forcibly holding the hands of the complainant over a period of time is impossible. 15. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings on the ground of procedural defects and violation of principles of natural justice. He would submit that the complaint was originally referred to the Internal Complaints Committee, set up under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'Act 14 of 2013‘). He would submit that Section 4 of Act 14 of 2013 requires the Internal Complaints Committee to have a Presiding Officer, who shall be a Woman, whereas, the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee, at the relevant point of time was a man, viz., the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. He would submit that Section 4 of Act 14 of 2013 requires the Internal Complaints Committee to have a Presiding Officer, who shall be a Woman, whereas, the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee, at the relevant point of time was a man, viz., the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. Further, there is a requirement under Section 10 of this Act for resorting to conciliation before any enquiry could have been conducted. However, no conciliation proceedings had been initiated and the enquiry has conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee unilaterally behind the back of the petitioner. 16. The petitioner relies upon Section 11 of Act 14 of 2013, which stipulates that the enquiry should be conducted in accordance with the Service Rules applicable to the petitioner, and consequently, the enquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee, without following the procedure set out in the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short =the Rules‘), would have to be set aside on account of the violation of the procedure set out under these Rules. 17. The petitioner also contends that the petitioner was not given a copy of the report of the Internal Complaints Committee, which is the basis on which the charges had been framed, even till the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner contends that if such a report had been given, the petitioner would have had a right of appeal under Section 18 of Act 14 of 2013 and consequently, the enquiry itself would have to be set aside. The petitioner also contends that even in the disciplinary proceedings, the request of the petitioner for furnishing copies of the documents enlisted in Annexure-2 of the Charge Memo, had been rejected and the disciplinary authority only permitted the petitioner to peruse the documents instead being given the copies of the documents, which is in violation of the provisions of Rule 20(4) of the Rules1991. 18. Section 10 reads as follows: Section 10 – Conciliation .—(1) The Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee, may, before initiating an inquiry under section 11 and at the request of the aggrieved woman take steps to settle the matter between her and the respondent through conciliation: Provided that no monetary settlement shall be made as a basis of conciliation. (2) Where settlement has been arrived at under sub- section (1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall record the settlement so arrived and forward the same to the employer or the District Officer to take action as specified in the recommendation. (3) The Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide the copies of the settlement as recorded under sub-section (2) to the aggrieved woman and the respondent. (4) Where a settlement is arrived at under sub-section (1), no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be. In terms of the language of this section, the internal complaints committee can take steps to settle the complaint, by way of conciliation, at the request of the complainant. In the present case, there was no request from the complainant to settle the complaint, by way of conciliation. Hence, the contention of the petitioner, in this regard, has to be rejected. 19. The steps that are to be taken subsequent to the receipt of the complaint, under section 9, are set out in sections 11 to 13. The provisions relevant to this case are sections 11 and 13, which read as follows: Section-11 . Hence, the contention of the petitioner, in this regard, has to be rejected. 19. The steps that are to be taken subsequent to the receipt of the complaint, under section 9, are set out in sections 11 to 13. The provisions relevant to this case are sections 11 and 13, which read as follows: Section-11 . Inquiry into complaint .— (1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable: Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub-section (2) of section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee shall proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be, forward the complaint to the police: Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the course of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15. (3) For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub- section (1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other matter which may be prescribed. (4) The inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of ninety days. Section-13. Inquiry report .—(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties. (2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter. (2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter. (3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be— (i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed; (ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15: Provide that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman: Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (ii), the Internal Committee or as, the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer. (4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him. 20. Under Section 11, of Act 14 of 2013, the Internal Complaints Committee has to enquire into the complaint made by the Aggrieved Woman. This enquiry is to be conducted in accordance with the service Rules applicable to the employee, under investigation. The proviso to Section 11 (1) states that the complainant and the employee against whom the complaint has been given, have to be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings, if any, of the Internal Complaints Committee, would have to be served on both of them. The proviso to Section 11 (1) states that the complainant and the employee against whom the complaint has been given, have to be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings, if any, of the Internal Complaints Committee, would have to be served on both of them. This is for the purpose of enabling them to prefer a representation/appeal against the findings of the Committee. 21. The Internal Complaints Committee, after completing its enquiry, has to provide the report of its findings, to the employer, which would mean the Principal District Judge, in the present case. This report is to be provided to the employer within a period of 10 days from the completion of the enquiry and the report would have to be made available to both the complainant and the employee against whom the complaint has been made. 22. Under Section 13 of Act 14 of 2013, the Internal Complaints Committee, where it has arrived at a conclusion, that the allegation made by the complainant has been proved, has to recommend the future course of action, to the employer, in terms of the provisions of Section 13(3). Upon receipt of such report and recommendations, the employer has to act upon the recommendations, within 60 days of its receipt. As the term =shall‘ is used throughout Section 13, it must be understood that the provisions are mandatory. 23. An appeal, under Section 18 of Act 14 of 2013, is provided where any person is aggrieved by the recommendations made by the Internal Complaints Committee, under Sections 13(2) or 13(3) or 14(2) or 17. The recommendation under Section 13(2) is a recommendation to close the complaint as no case has been made out. The recommendation under clause (1) or clause (2) of Section 13(3) is on a conclusion that the allegations made by the complainant have been proved. Section 18 stipulates that an appeal, under this provision, can be made to the Court or Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules applicable to the employee, or where no such Rules exists, then in the manner as may be prescribed. 24. The scheme of the Act 14 of 2013, as set out above, is that a complaint filed before the Internal Complaints Committee, has to be enquired by the Internal Complaints Committee itself. 24. The scheme of the Act 14 of 2013, as set out above, is that a complaint filed before the Internal Complaints Committee, has to be enquired by the Internal Complaints Committee itself. The procedure, that is to be followed by the Internal Complaints Committee, would be the procedure stipulated in the Service Rules of the concerned employee. Apart from the requirements of the Service Rules, if any, the Internal Complaints Committee is required, under Section 11, to furnish a copy of the complaint to the employee, under investigation, and to give him an opportunity of participating in the enquiry. This would mean that the employee, under investigation, would not only be permitted to set forth his side of the case, but would also have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses that may be produced by the complainant and dispute the material produced by the complainant before the Internal Complaints Committee. Thereafter, the Internal Complaints Committee, after preparing its report, has to furnish a copy of this report to both the complainant as well as the employee under investigation. This would enable the parties, to file an appeal under Section 18 of Act 14 of 2013, if they are aggrieved by the report and the recommendations made in the report. This appeal is to be in accordance with the Service Rules, applicable to the complainant or the employee under investigation, and where no such Rules are available, the appeal can be filed as prescribed under Act 14 of 2013. 25. The Rules have also been framed, under Act 14 of 2013. Under these Rules, the Internal Complaints Committee was required to serve the copy of the complaint along with the documents, attached to the complaint, to the petitioner herein, within a period of seven working days from the date of receipt of the complaint. No such service of complaint and documents had been made by the Internal Complaints Committee. Further, the Internal Complaints Committee did not inform the petitioner about the complaint of the complainant nor did the Internal Complaints Committee give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Internal Complaints Committee did not furnish a copy of the enquiry report and the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee to the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, the Internal Complaints Committee did not furnish a copy of the enquiry report and the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee to the petitioner. Section 11 of Act 14 of 2013 itself stipulates that the enquiry has to be conducted in terms of the Service Rules, which in the present case, would be the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 26. Section 11, of Act 14 of 2013, requires the enquiry to be conducted in terms of the Service Rules, which in the present case, would be the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 20 of these Rules require that the complaint be served on the petitioner and he should be given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. No such steps were taken by the Internal Complaints Committee. The manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee is clearly violative of the requirements under the provisions of Act 14 of 2013 and the Rules made thereunder and also under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 27. In the present case, the Internal Complaints Committee, had forwarded a report to the Principal District Judge. Under the above scheme of Act 14 of 2013, the Principal District Judge would have to act upon the report and the recommendations made in the report. Instead of adopting such a course of action, the Principal District Judge again initiated a further enquiry.This is clearly impermissible in terms of the provisions of Act 14 of 2013. 28. It appears that the petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, dated 07.08.2019, had requested the disciplinary authority, on 26.08.2019, to furnish copies of the documents enumerated in Annexure-2 of the charge memo (Annexure-2 is said to be the list of documents, under which the enquiry has been initiated). However, the petitioner was given only two documents out of six documents enumerated in Annexure-2, which is clearly in violation of Rule 20 (4) of the Rules. The entire enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is in clear violation of the aforesaid Act and Rules, apart from being a violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner had a valuable right of filing an appeal against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee. This opportunity was not given to the Petitioner. The entire enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is in clear violation of the aforesaid Act and Rules, apart from being a violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner had a valuable right of filing an appeal against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee. This opportunity was not given to the Petitioner. The subsequent enquiry could not have been initiated, without giving such an opportunity and stands invalidated on this ground alone. 29. The petitioner has also raised further grounds against the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer, including the fact that the some documents listed in the charge memo were not marked while additional documents which were not shown in the charge memo were marked. One of the documents, which was not supplied, is the statement of the complainant recorded by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, which is one of the bases for the conduct of the enquiry. These facts show that there has been a clear violation of principles of natural justice as well as the procedural safeguards contained in Act 14 of 2013 and the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 30. Apart from this, a perusal of the material, which has been placed before us shows that the findings of the enquiring officer, are not appropriate and they could not have been accepted by the disciplinary authority. The first complaint, before the Principal District Judge was that the petitioner was trying to grab the hand of the complainant whenever she went to sign the attendance register and that she had started signing the attendance register before the petitioner came to the office, so as to avoid him. She further stated that on one day, he forcibly held her left hand and she was able to free herself with some struggle due to which scratches were formed on her left hand. In the subsequent statement before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, she improved this version by stating that the petitioner not only held her hand but was pressing her breast. She sought to explain this discrepancy in her cross-examination, by stating that the first statement was scribed by a male and she could not set out this complaint because of her modesty while the second statement was recorded by the Magistrate, who was a woman and she was able to set out this statement. She sought to explain this discrepancy in her cross-examination, by stating that the first statement was scribed by a male and she could not set out this complaint because of her modesty while the second statement was recorded by the Magistrate, who was a woman and she was able to set out this statement. The enquiring officer accepted this explanation. It is not clear as to how such a vital discrepancy and which is a clear improvement, could have been accepted. Apart from this discrepancy, the complainant had stated, before the Principal District Judge, that her left hand was injured, but while deposing before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class she has stated that her right hand got injured. No explanation was given for this discrepancy and the enquiry officer simply ignored this discrepancy. 31. More than these discrepancies, the enquiring officer should have looked at another fact. The complainant had stated that she had been signing the attendance register even before the petitioner came to the office, for some time, so as to avoid the petitioner. In the course of her cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the attendance register would be locked in the almirah of the Superintendent, that is the petitioner. This would mean that the complainant could not have signed any attendance register before the arrival of the petitioner in the office as the attendance register would have to be taken out of the almirah by the petitioner after he came to the office. 32. It is clear that the statement of the complainant that she was signing the attendance register, over a long period of time, even before the petitioner had come to the office is a false statement. In such a situation, the inquiring officer could not have accepted the evidence of the complainant and also should have given more serious consideration to the clear discrepancies in her statements. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution were eye-witnesses to any incident of the petitioner holding the hand of the complainant or doing any other act, against the complainant, which would amount to sexual harassment. The evidence produced by the prosecution, is at best, the statements, made by the complainant, to them. 33. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution were eye-witnesses to any incident of the petitioner holding the hand of the complainant or doing any other act, against the complainant, which would amount to sexual harassment. The evidence produced by the prosecution, is at best, the statements, made by the complainant, to them. 33. The enquiry officer, came to the conclusion that these complaints were true on the ground that the complainant had approached the Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, for complaining about the conduct of the petitioner. The enquiry officer could not have come to the conclusion that this is a true complaint because the complainant approached the Magistrate. The question before the enquiry officer was whether the complaint was a true and genuine complaint or whether it was a complaint made for other reasons. That aspect was never considered by the enquiry officer. 34. The refusal to consider the discrepancies and the acceptance of the explanation given by the complainant, regarding these discrepancies, by the enquiry officer, was not correct. The clear false statement made by the complainant, that she was signing the attendance register before the arrival of the petitioner, when it was not possible, militates against the acceptance of the version of the complainant. The reasons given by the petitioner, as to why, the complainant had developed a grudge against the petitioner has credibility, after seeing the cross examination of the complainant, inasmuch as the complainant admits that she owed money to the wife of the petitioner and that an enquiry had been conducted, at the behest of the petitioner, regarding the missing phone of Smt. Ratnamala. 35. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent-disciplinary authority bearing D.E. File No.13/2019 dated 21.06.2021 and the consequential order of the 1 st respondent in D(D)A No.03/2022, C.4(Con), dated 22.07.2022, are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, with all consequential benefits, of seniority and scale of pay, except back wages.There shall be no order as to costs.As a sequel, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.