ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2 nd respondent in dismissing the petitioner from service vide Proceedings No.4892/CPR&RE/E3/2017, dated 04.02.2024 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as MPDO on16.10.1999 and he has been discharging his duties without any complaint. He worked as MPDO at Peddapally, Karimnagar District, during the period from 23.09.2013 to 25.02.2014 and again from 01.07.2014 to 22.12.2016. While so, on 30.05.2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, issued notice to that petitioner alleging that he has not remitted an amount of Rs.7,66,000/- to the concerned account. The said amount was undisbursed Aasara Pension, which was supposed to be distributed/disbursed by the Panchayat Secretaries of different villages. The petitioner has not submitted his explanation to the said notice. The undisbursed Aasara Pension was returned to or paid back in the office of MPDO by the concerned Panchayat Secretaries. The amount appears to have been handed over to the Junior Assistant of Office of MPDO, Peddapally. At that point of time, the Junior Assistant of the office of MPDO had received an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- and Rs.2,46,500/-. (b) The Junior Assistant by name Sri Hari Krishna Prasad appears to have made an application to the higher officials stating that he had handed over the said amount to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not remit the amount to the concerned account. According to the said Sri Hari Krishna, an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- was remitted to SNA account and an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- is still lying with the petitioner and he did not remit the said amount. The allegation made by the said Junior Assistant that he handed over the said amount to the petitioner is false. (c) One Sri P.Ashok Kumar, Revenue Divisional Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 13.05.2016 and he has given notices to the petitioner on 16.07.2016, 28.09.2016 and 05.10.2015 fixing the dates of enquiry on18.07.2016, 04.10.2016 and 10.10.2016. The petitioner appeared before the said Enquiry officer on the said dates. (c) One Sri P.Ashok Kumar, Revenue Divisional Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 13.05.2016 and he has given notices to the petitioner on 16.07.2016, 28.09.2016 and 05.10.2015 fixing the dates of enquiry on18.07.2016, 04.10.2016 and 10.10.2016. The petitioner appeared before the said Enquiry officer on the said dates. But, the Enquiry Officer was busy and he did not conduct any enquiry in the presence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer collected the statements of Sri S.Hari Krishna Prasad and Panchayat Secretaries behind the back of the petitioner and submitted a report vide reference No.A/2741/2016, dated 06.09.2017 stating that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was proved. The Commissioner Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment directed the Chief Executive Officer to prepare draft articles of charge. (d) The 2 nd respondent issued Charge Memo to the petitioner on 20.03.2018 framing three articles of charges against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.12.2019 to the said Charge Memo. The 2 nd respondent had appointed the CEO, ZPP, Karimnagar, as the Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 21.05.2018 i.e., even before the receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also appointed the District Panchayat Officer as the presenting officer. The CEO fixed the dates of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer called several persons to her office and collected their statements. Around 14 persons were called as witnesses by the Enquiry Officer. None of them were examined nor their statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioner. The said Enquiry Officer referred the matter to the District Collector, who inturn appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held that Charge Nos.1 and 3 were proved and there are no substantial grounds to prove Charge No.2. The enquiry report is not based on any legal evidence. Except the preliminary enquiry report, there were no other documents related to the charge framed against the petitioner. (e) The preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The Preliminary Enquiry Officer was not examined as a witness. His report was not marked as a document at the enquiry. The said enquiry report was served to the petitioner through Memo No.4892/CPR&RE/E3/2017, dated 16.06.2022. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.07.2022 stating that the entire charge framed against the petitioner is baseless. The Preliminary Enquiry Officer was not examined as a witness. His report was not marked as a document at the enquiry. The said enquiry report was served to the petitioner through Memo No.4892/CPR&RE/E3/2017, dated 16.06.2022. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.07.2022 stating that the entire charge framed against the petitioner is baseless. The total amount of Aasara Pension i.e., Rs.13,44,01,000/- was released and an amount of Rs.13,24,23,500/- was disbursed. The undisbursed amount of Rs.19,77,500/- was remitted and there is no balance amount. The Director PR & RE issued a show-cause notice dated 08.09.2023 to the petitioner stating that he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- and to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted explanation to the 2nd respondent on 31.10.2023 stating that he has not misappropriated any amount. The petitioner also made a representation on 27.12.2023 stating that the Junior Assistant Sri Hari Krishna Prasad is responsible for misappropriation and he has not misappropriated any amount. (f) The 2nd respondent submitted proceedings No.4892/CPR&RE/E3/2017, dated 04.02.2024 to the Government seeking permission to dismiss the petitioner from service. The Government issued impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2024 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2 nd respondent has erroneously passed the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2024 without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2024 and allow the writ petition. 5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) While the petitioner was working as MPDO in Karimnagar District, he was arrested on 19.12.2006 on the complaint given by one Sri Kusumba Ramesh stating that he has paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner for providing job to his son, but he failed to provide job. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail. Two articles of charges were framed against the petitioner for misappropriation of MGNREGS funds vide Charge Memo dated 19.07.2012 and Charge Memo dated 01.02.2013 and in the said two cases, the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner besides recovery of Rs.2,16,230/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail. Two articles of charges were framed against the petitioner for misappropriation of MGNREGS funds vide Charge Memo dated 19.07.2012 and Charge Memo dated 01.02.2013 and in the said two cases, the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner besides recovery of Rs.2,16,230/-. (b) The Chief Executive Officer, ZPP., Karimnagar District, has submitted an enquiry report along with draft articles of charges vide letter dated 16.09.2017 for misuse of Aasara pension amount by the petitioner in Peddapally Mandal. Based on the enquiry report, Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 20.03.2018. The petitioner has not submitted his written statement to the articles of charges served on him. The Director, PR&RE has appointed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District, as Enquiry Officer and the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar District, as the Presenting Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 21.05.2018. (c) The Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report stating that charge Nos.1 and 3 framed against the petitioner were proved and charge No.2 was not proved vide letter dated 23.05.2022. The enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner vide Office Memo dated 16.06.2022 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.07.2022. The personal hearing with the petitioner was held on 30.07.2022 and the petitioner has submitted a copy of online report with regard to Asara Scheme from 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2016, which shows that the remitted amount as “zero” which pertains to MPP Peddapalli and he has submitted a bank credit voucher dated 03.10.2016, which shows remittance of an amount of Rs.6,39,500/- through cheque No.854089, dated 03.10.2016 into State Nodal Account. The said details were verified with bank statements of MPP Peddapalli Account No.62058142754 for the period from 01.11.2014 to 30.11.2018 and also at SERP Office with their records, wherein it was found that the cheque number and amounts are not tallied and that the MPDO entered bogus cheque numbers and amounts. The said amounts were verified in the Asara Pension account of MPP, Pedapally and that the details of cheque number and amounts are not found in the bank statement. From the said statement, it is established that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- and not remitted the said amount and produced the bogus reports. The said amounts were verified in the Asara Pension account of MPP, Pedapally and that the details of cheque number and amounts are not found in the bank statement. From the said statement, it is established that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- and not remitted the said amount and produced the bogus reports. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has not misappropriated any amount is not acceptable. (d) As per Rule 11 of TGCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, the 2 nd respondent has requested the Government to accord permission for dismissal of the petitioner from service, besides recovery of Rs.5,73,500/- vide letter dated 15.09.2022. The Government vide Memo dated 23.08.2023 informed that it has examined the original file, remarks of the Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, and the details of the disciplinary cases pending against the petitioner and observed that the petitioner seems to be habitual offender and he has misappropriated the alleged amount and also committed irregularities in implementing MGNREGS programme. The Government, after careful examination of the entire matter, accorded permission to the Director, PR&RE, T.S., Hyderabad, to impose the penalty of dismissal from service besides recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.5,73,500/-. (e) In view of the above Government instructions, findings of the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner, the Director, PR & RE T.S., Hyderabad, issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner on 08.09.2023 to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service and as to why an amount of Rs..5,73,500/- should not be recovered from him. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 27.12.2023 stating that he has remitted back an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- through D.D.No.597931, dated 31.10.2023 in favour of MPDO, Peddapalli, and requested to drop further action. The MPDO, MPP Peddapally vide letter issued in the month of November, 2023, confirmed that the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.5,73,500/-. (f) The petitioner has misappropriated the above said amount and remitted the same after completion of enquiry and after issuing a show-cause to the notice for dismissal from service. Being a responsible Mandal Parishad Development Officer, his duty is to look after the welfare of the poor people. But, he failed to do so. (f) The petitioner has misappropriated the above said amount and remitted the same after completion of enquiry and after issuing a show-cause to the notice for dismissal from service. Being a responsible Mandal Parishad Development Officer, his duty is to look after the welfare of the poor people. But, he failed to do so. Therefore, the Government, after careful examination of the entire matter, accorded permission to the Director, PR & RE, T.S., Hyderabad, to impose the penalty of “dismissal from service” on the petitioner besides recovery of an amount of Rs.5,73,500/-. In view of the Government orders, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 04.02.2024. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has misappropriated the alleged amount. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly passed the impugned proceedings dated 04.02.2024. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that a perusal of the impugned order dated 04.02.2024 goes to show that the respondent authorities, while conducting the enquiry, called several persons to the office and appear to have collected the statements from them. None of them was examined before/in the presence of the petitioner. Around 14 persons were called as witnesses by the Enquiry Officer. But, the fact remains that none of the persons were examined before the petitioner, nor their statements were recorded before the petitioner. In total, fourteen persons were called as witnesses, and they were not cited as witnesses in the chargememo. The enquiry officer has analysed the evidence and assessed the evidence. The overall impugned proceedings reflect that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the TSCS (CC& A) Rules while imposing the major penalty. If the authorities pass the order without following the said procedure, it cannot be sustained under the law. 8. Under Rule 9 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, under major penalties, sub-cause (x)reads as follows: (x) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government (provided that in all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from service shall be imposed). 9. 9. If the authorities follow the provision mentioned above, the charges framed against the petitioner have not been fully proved. However, in the present case, out of the three charges, charge Nos.1 and 3 are proved, and charge No.2 is not proved. Without proving all the charges, the imposition of a major penalty cannot be considered. 10. With regard to imposing major penalties, Rule 20 sub-clause 10(a) to (e) and 11(a) to (c) reads as follows :- “10(a) On the dates fixed for recording the evidence, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. (b) The evidence shall be recorded as far as possible on day-to-day basis till the evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority is completed. (c) The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and they may be cross examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. (d) The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross examined, but not on any new matter without the permission of the Inquiring Authority. (e) The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. (11) (a) If it appears necessary before the closure of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness. (b) In such case, the Government Servant shall be entitled to have a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. (c) The Inquiring Authority shall give the Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record.” 11. While imposing the major penalty, the aforementioned process must be followed by the authorities. In the instant case, the respondent authorities passed the impugned final order, dated04.02.2024, without considering the said process. 12. (c) The Inquiring Authority shall give the Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record.” 11. While imposing the major penalty, the aforementioned process must be followed by the authorities. In the instant case, the respondent authorities passed the impugned final order, dated04.02.2024, without considering the said process. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and the same is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contentions, he relied upon STATE the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bank of Patiala and Others vs. S.K. Sharma , 1996 (3) SCC 364 wherein the Apex Court held as follows :- “20. In Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa, Hidayatullah, C.J. (speaking for the Bench comprising himself and G.K. Mitter, J.) made the following pertinent observations: (SCC pp. 394-395, para 5) “From this material it is argued that the principles of natural justice were violated because the right of the appellant to have his own evidence recorded was denied to him and further that the material which was gathered behind his back was used in determining his guilt. In support of these contentions a number of rulings are cited chief among which are State of Bombay v. Narul Latif Khan, State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma and Union of India v. T.R. Varma, There is no doubt that if the principles of natural justice are violated and there is a gross case this Court would interfere by striking down the order of dismissal; but there are cases and cases. We have to look to what actual prejudice has been caused to a person by the supposed denial to him of a particular right Anyway the questions which were put to the witnesses were recorded and sent to the Chief Engineer and his replies were received. No doubt the replies were not put in the hands of the appellant but he saw them at the time when he was making the representations and curiously enough he used those replies in his defence. In other words, they were not collected behind his back and could be used to his advantage and he had an opportunity of so using them in his defence. In other words, they were not collected behind his back and could be used to his advantage and he had an opportunity of so using them in his defence. We do not think that any prejudice was caused to the appellant in his case by not examining the two retired Superintending Engineers whom he had cited or any one of them.” 13. The above judgment of the Apex Court supports the petitioner’s contention, as the respondent authorities did not follow Rule 20 of CC&A Rules in letter and spirit, as the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. 14. In the instant case, as alleged by the respondents, the petitioner paid the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.5,73,500/- vide D.D.No.597931, dated 31.10.2023. All the charges framed against the petitioner have not been proved, and without proving all the charges, the punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate. During the personal hearing, the petitioner submitted a copy of an online report regarding the Asara scheme from 01.11.2014 to 31.12.2016, pertaining to MPP, Peddapalli. The respondent authorities observed that the petitioner’s report was manually prepared using the MPDO’s login and was not an authenticated report. Once the authorities observed that the report was not authenticated, it ought to have obtained further clarification from the petitioner, but the respondents failed to do so. In view of non-proving of all the charges against the petitioner, not following the Rule 20 of CC&A Rules, without getting proper clarification from the petitioner, imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service is highly excessive and the same is liable to be modified. 15. Therefore, the impugned proceeding dated 04.02.2024, passed by the 2 nd respondent, is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to impose a lesser punishment, other than dismissal/removal from service, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.