JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32623 of 2017 dated 03.05.2024. 2. Heard Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellant on record, and Sri S.Bopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the appellant was appointed as Watchman in the year 1986 and was posted at APSWRS/Junior College (Girls), Mattampally, Nalgonda District, and he was transferred to APSWRS (Girls), G.V.Gudem, Nalgonda in the month of January 1999. 4. An incident occurred on the intervening night of 31.08.2000/ 01.09.2000, when an unidentified person, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, entered the Kiran Bedi House, a girls’ dormitory, and attempted to molest a girl studying in the 8th class. However, when the other two girls raised an alarm, the person fled from the scene, i.e., the girls’ dormitory. 5. The students narrated the incident to the then Principal, i.e., respondent No.3, on 01.09.2000 and requested to take action. Accordingly, on the same day, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, I Town P.S. Nalgonda, requesting to take action and specifically mentioning that an unknown person entered and threatened the girl students, later, after raising the alarm, the person fled from the scene. 6. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 04.09.2000, the 3rd respondent surrendered the services of the appellant to the Principal of A.P. Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College (Girls), Nakrekal for further posting. Following this, the 3rd respondent has informed the Secretary, Telangana Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, i.e., Respondent no. 2, specifying the facts and requesting a proper inquiry. 7. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint against the appellant with the 2 nd respondent, upon the same, the 2 nd respondent placed the appellant under suspension pending inquiry vide proceedings dated 05.09.2000. Later, the said suspension order was modified on 21.09.2000, and the suspension was extended till the completion of the inquiry. 8. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 09.11.2000, appointed an inquiry officer. Later, the said suspension order was modified on 21.09.2000, and the suspension was extended till the completion of the inquiry. 8. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 09.11.2000, appointed an inquiry officer. The said inquiry officer issued a memo to 3rd respondent asking her to attend the inquiry, in which the students were not called for the inquiry, but the 3 rd respondent, on her own, called them; however, the students were not examined, and the inquiry report was submitted. Following this, the 2nd respondent vide proceeding dated 11.01.2001 dismissed the appellant from service with immediate effect. 9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the appellant filed W.P.No.2597 of 2001 and the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.11.2010 was pleased to set aside the dismissal order by observing that the procedure followed by the inquiry officer is contrary to the regulations and no procedure was followed during the inquiry except filing of the inquiry report by the officer and further observed that the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 08.12.2000, however, the same was not even placed on record. learned single Judge, however, gave liberty to the respondents to conduct inquiry strictly in accordance with the regulations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, with respect to reinstatement or suspension of the appellant. 10. Pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.2010, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 26.07.2011 canceled the dismissal order of the appellant and placed the appellant under suspension on the same day. Later, the charge memo was issued on 20.09.2011, framing two charges and seeking explanation of the appellant, and accordingly, the appellant submitted his explanation on 21.05.2012. 11. The Assistant Secretary (Finance), APSWREI Society, was appointed as inquiry officer on 18.06.2012, and the said officer submitted his report on 05.10.2012 by concluding that the charges leveled against the appellant are not proved and the copy of the said inquiry report was communicated to the appellant for his explanation and the appellant submitted his explanation on 03.12.2012. 12. However, the 2nd respondent, vide proceeding dated 06.02.2013, ordered a re-inquiry by stating that the inquiry officer has not concluded the charges whether as proved or not, and the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the inquiry, and the inquiry officer has to exclusively specify the findings and recommendations. 12. However, the 2nd respondent, vide proceeding dated 06.02.2013, ordered a re-inquiry by stating that the inquiry officer has not concluded the charges whether as proved or not, and the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the inquiry, and the inquiry officer has to exclusively specify the findings and recommendations. In furtherance of this, the same inquiry officer was appointed to conduct the second inquiry and submitted the report on 15.04.2013, wherein the inquiry officer concluded that the unknown person who entered the girls’ dormitory was none other than the appellant and recommended suitable disciplinary action against the appellant. 13. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 28.05.2013 communicated the inquiry report to the appellant and called for his explanation, and the appellant submitted an explanation on 24.06.2013. However, not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 19.10.2013, dismissed the appellant from service. 14. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellant preferred an appeal on 28.11.2013 before the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Society, i.e., respondent no. 1. However, 1st respondent dismissed the appeal vide proceedings dated 18.05.2017 by confirming the dismissal order. 15. Aggrieved by the said confirmation order dated 18.05.2017 by the 1st respondent, the appellant filed W.P.No.32623 of 2017. The learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide order dated 03.05.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 16. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the charge memo issued to the appellant itself is conclusive in nature as no witnesses were examined during the inquiry, and the principles of natural justice were not followed. He further contended that in the complaint given by the girl students on 01.09.2000, it was specifically mentioned that an unknown person entered the girl’s dormitory, and nowhere the name of the appellant was mentioned initially; however, after four days, the name of the appellant was mentioned for the first time in the second complaint. 17. Learned senior sounsel also submitted that in the subsequent complaint dated 03/04.09.2000 given by the students to the 3rd respondent, it was stated that an unknown person, who entered the girl’s dormitory, was none other than the appellant, which clearly appears to be an afterthought. 17. Learned senior sounsel also submitted that in the subsequent complaint dated 03/04.09.2000 given by the students to the 3rd respondent, it was stated that an unknown person, who entered the girl’s dormitory, was none other than the appellant, which clearly appears to be an afterthought. He also submitted that, on 14.10.2000, the appellant submitted the photographs of the farewell party that was organized on 31.08.2000 to the 2nd respondent but the same was not considered. 18. Learned senior sounsel contended that in the first inquiry report dated 05.10.2012, it was clearly observed by the inquiry officer that the charges framed against the appellant were not proved and the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the complaint given to the police, and the students did not come forward to give statements; and the only evidence placed on record was the statement of the 3rd respondent. He further contended that 2nd respondent ordered a re-inquiry into the incident on the grounds that the inquiry officer had not concluded the charges, whether as proved or not, and the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the outcome of the inquiry, which per se is impermissible, and the second inquiry itself is vitiated. 19. Learned senior sounsel also contended that the same inquiry officer, on the same evidence and material, had submitted a second report concluding that the unknown person who entered the girl’s dormitory was none other than the appellant and recommended disciplinary action against the appellant. He further contended that the 2nd report was based on the same material that was there on record during the first inquiry and, therefore, the inquiry officer could not have come to a different conclusion in the 2nd inquiry on the same set of material and evidence. Therefore, he contends that the 2nd inquiry report is vitiated. 20. Learned senior sounsel further contended that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to cross-examine the students as they did not appear before the inquiry officer, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He also contended that on 31.08.2000, a farewell party was permitted in the night on the hostel premises, which is contrary to rules, and this aspect was not even considered by the inquiry officer. Therefore, he submitted that the learned single Judge did not appreciate these aspects and dismissed the writ petition erroneously. He also contended that on 31.08.2000, a farewell party was permitted in the night on the hostel premises, which is contrary to rules, and this aspect was not even considered by the inquiry officer. Therefore, he submitted that the learned single Judge did not appreciate these aspects and dismissed the writ petition erroneously. The learned senior sounsel finally prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 03.05.2024 in W.P.No.32623 of 2017 and also to set aside the dismissal order dated 10.09.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent and as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 18.05.2017. 21. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents had submitted that the appellant participated in the inquiry proceedings, and he was afforded the opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings. He also submitted that the principles of natural justice were followed while conducting the inquiry and the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by concluding that the appellant entered the girls’ dormitory at midnight in an intoxicated condition, attempted to molest one girl and threatened the other girls. 22. The Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that since the inquiry officer failed to adjudicate the charges framed against the appellant in the first inquiry, the 2nd respondent rightly ordered a re- inquiry. He also submitted that the appellant was given the opportunity to defend himself, hence, it cannot be said that second inquiry is improper and is vitiated. He further submitted that the girl students in the complaint dated 03/04.10.2000 have categorically stated that the appellant had entered their dormitory and tried to molest them, and because of the hue and cry of the students, the appellant ran away. He also contended that the appellant, who was supposed to safeguard the premises, was absent at the time of the incident, which clearly shows his negligence, and therefore, disciplinary authority has rightly dismissed the appellant from service. 23. The Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the learned single Judge has rightly observed that there was no illegality or infirmity with the dismissal order dated 19.10.2013 as confirmed by the appellate authority vide proceedings dated 18.05.2017 while dismissing the W.P.No.32623 of 2017 and finally, contended that there are no merits in the appeal and that same is liable to be dismissed. Consideration: 24. Consideration: 24. From the factual matrix of the case and the material placed on record, it is seen that in the complaint given on 01.09.2000 to the 3rd respondent by the students, it was stated that an unknown person entered the dormitory and tried threatening the girls who were sleeping in the dormitory, and the 3rd respondent, in turn, lodged a complaint with the Police, wherein it was also mentioned that an unknown drunken person entered the girls dormitory and as the other two girls raised the alarm, the person ran away. It is pertinent to note that nothing was specified with respect to molestation or anything that indicates that the unknown person is the appellant. 25. Thereafter, in the second complaint given to the 3 rd respondent on 03/04.09.2000, it was mentioned that an unknown person who entered the girls’ dormitory was none other than the watchman, i.e. appellant herein. It is pertinent to note that, this was the very first instance where the act of attempt to molestation was reported by the students. It is also pertinent to note that, the issue of the attempt to molest was not reported to the police for further action, nor the same was reported to higher authorities by 3rd respondent in the letter dated 05.09.2000. 26. If the appellant had really entered the girls’ dormitory and tried to molest the girl and threatened the other two girls, they would have identified the appellant easily as he was a familiar and known person. The appellant’s name was not mentioned in the first complaint given to the 3rd respondent, and in the second complaint given to the 3rd respondent after three/four days of the incident, his name was mentioned, which naturally creates doubt as to the variation of the subsequent complaint. 27. The learned single Judge in the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in W.P.No.32623 of 2017 has recorded that the 3rd respondent has given the police complaint by stating that the unknown person was aged about 17 years. It is pertinent to note that the 3rd respondent in her complaint did not specify so, but indeed, on the perusal of the W.P.No.32623 of 2017 filed by the appellant, it is evident that the same was the contention of the appellant that the students had informed the police during the investigation/inquiry that the person might be aged 17-18 years. It is pertinent to note that the 3rd respondent in her complaint did not specify so, but indeed, on the perusal of the W.P.No.32623 of 2017 filed by the appellant, it is evident that the same was the contention of the appellant that the students had informed the police during the investigation/inquiry that the person might be aged 17-18 years. Hence, the learned single Judge erred while recording the same. 28. It is relevant to refer to the proceedings dated 26.07.2011 (revocation of dismissal order and further placing the appellant under suspension), wherein, it was clearly specified that 3rd respondent had permitted a farewell party on 31.08.2000 in the night in the college premises and also sent six girl students to perform cultural activities in the said party. The action of the 3rd respondent in permitting a private function of farewell party of the Deputy Collector, SLBC, who is in no way concerned with the respondent– society and further sending six resident girl students to perform cultural activities in the said party that too in the night is in clear contravention of rules. It is pertinent to mention that the untoward incident took place on the same night. It is also pertinent to mention that no action has been taken against the 3rd respondent, who permitted a private party in the girls’ hostel in the night in clear contravention of rules and also sent six girls to perform in the private party that too late hours. 29. Initially, the appellant was dismissed from service based on the report dated 08.12.2000, which was purported to have been given by the then Deputy Secretary of APSWREIS; however, the same was not placed on record. Pursuant to the orders of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2597 of 2001 dated 25.11.2010, an inquiry was ordered by the respondents and an inquiry officer was appointed. 30. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and concluded that the charges framed against the appellant were not proved. In the said report, it was specified that no student came forward to give evidence, and the inquiry officer observed that there was no FIR lodged against the said incident with the police. 30. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and concluded that the charges framed against the appellant were not proved. In the said report, it was specified that no student came forward to give evidence, and the inquiry officer observed that there was no FIR lodged against the said incident with the police. The inquiry officer has also observed that there was no evidence that the appellant had consumed alcohol while on duty; that the other teachers, who were working in the said school in the year 2000, when contacted, stated that they were not aware of such occurrence of an incident during their service. 31. However, the 2nd respondent was not satisfied with the findings and ordered, a re-inquiry on the sole ground that the inquiry officer had not concluded the proceedings, whether as proved or not, and the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the findings of the inquiry officer, which is perverse and impermissible, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant. 32. However, in the second inquiry, the same inquiry officer, based on the same evidence and material, has come to a different conclusion that the unknown person who entered the girls’ dormitory is the appellant based upon the statement of the 3rd respondent and also the statements of the students from the previous inquiry. It is pertinent to note that, the statements of the students were never recorded, even during the very initial inquiry. Hence, the conclusion of the inquiry officer based on the statements of students is irrational, and there is no clarification as to how the statements are available on record and who recorded the same. The learned single Judge did not consider the fact that the statements of the students were never previously recorded and also erred while observing that the findings of the inquiry officer in the second inquiry report are true as it is based on the statements previously recorded. 33. The other aspect that requires consideration is whether re- inquiry is permissible at the discretion of the respondents, which was conducted by the same inquiry officer. It is settled law that when the disciplinary authority orders an inquiry, and the inquiry officer submits the report, the disciplinary authority may agree or disagree with the report and proceed further based on the report. It is settled law that when the disciplinary authority orders an inquiry, and the inquiry officer submits the report, the disciplinary authority may agree or disagree with the report and proceed further based on the report. However, in the present case, the disciplinary authority had ordered a re-inquiry with the same inquiry officer, which is impermissible. The learned single Judge failed to observe that the second inquiry was ordered on the sole ground that there was no conclusion provided by the officer as to whether the charges were proved or not and the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the findings of the officer. The learned single Judge also failed to observe that the second inquiry was conducted by the same officer, with the same material and with the same evidence available on record but came to a different conclusion. 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upholding the same principle, in the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 , observed: “18. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that if the charge which has been levelled under the memo dated 23.12.2003 had earlier been enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent authority, and if the respondent had been exonerated on that very charge, a second enquiry would not be maintainable.” The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the present case since, in the present case, in the first inquiry report, the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the appellant are not proved and in the second inquiry report, the same officer came to a different conclusion. Therefore, the second inquiry report is vitiated and thus invalid. 35. This Court is conscious of the fact that power of judicial review being exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the decision of the authorities holding the departmental inquiry against the public servant is limited to examining the decision making process and not to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This Court is conscious of the fact that power of judicial review being exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the decision of the authorities holding the departmental inquiry against the public servant is limited to examining the decision making process and not to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. It is true that the High Court is not an appellate court, but it is pertinent to note that the High Court can look into any error that is apparent on the face of record and determine whether the inquiry is in accordance with the procedure prescribed and is not violative of the principles of natural justice and that the same is not vitiated. In the present case, the dismissal order is based on the second inquiry report, which was ordered by the 2nd respondent on the ground that disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the outcome of the first enquiry report. It is settled principle of law that if disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the enquiry report, it can record reasons for its disagreement and can proceed further by duly affording opportunity to an employee, however, it cannot order for second enquiry. Therefore, the second enquiry report is contrary to the settled principles of law. Also, it is evident from the record that, in the instant case, the principles of natural justice were also not followed. 36. It is evident from the record that the girl students neither appeared before the inquiry officer nor gave any statement at any point of time in the three inquiries conducted. The only basis of the findings of the inquiry officer in the second report is the statement given by the 3rd respondent i.e., the principal. However, the inquiry officer in the second report observed that the findings are based on the statements given by the students in the previous inquiry. This observation is contrary to the record, and except examining the 3rd respondent, none were examined. Therefore, the second inquiry report is vitiated. 37. On perusal of the entire material placed on record, it is evident that there is no proper evidence and material to show that the intruder, who entered into the girls’ dormitory, is, in fact, the appellant herein in the absence of a statement of girl students in the inquiry. Therefore, the second inquiry report is vitiated. 37. On perusal of the entire material placed on record, it is evident that there is no proper evidence and material to show that the intruder, who entered into the girls’ dormitory, is, in fact, the appellant herein in the absence of a statement of girl students in the inquiry. The inquiry officer ought not to have come to a different conclusion in the second inquiry report on the basis of the same evidence and material and, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2013 of the 2 nd respondent and as affirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 18.05.2017 are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Conclusion: 38. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently, impugned proceedings dated 19.10.2013 dismissing the appellant from service and confirmed by the appellate authority vide proceedings dated 18.05.2017 and the impugned order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.32623 of 2017 dated 03.05.2024 are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits; however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to only 50% of the back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.