ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the dismissal order vide proceedings No.18440/A3-2/95-12, dated 22.03.2012, issued by the 1 st respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. 2. Heard Sri Siva, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) Petitioner was initially appointed in the 2nd respondent’s office in the year 1985, and his services were regularised. Meanwhile, a chargesheet was served on him, and by order dated 24.10.1998, he was placed under suspension on allegations that the petitioner had misbehaved with and molested a girl studying in the 10th standard. For which, he submitted his explanation denying the said allegations. Thereafter, the respondent authorities immediately issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for dismissal from service on 01.08.2000, for which he submitted an explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. (b) The respondent authorities issued the impugned proceedings of dismissal from service vide Proc. No.18440/C2/3/99-2001, dated 30.04.2001. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal before the Vice Chairman of APREI Society, Hyderabad, which was rejected on 09.07.2001. Later, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19415 of 2003 questioning the dismissal from service on the file of this Court and this Court allowed the Writ Petition on 29.10.2010 and set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2004 as follows: "...The dismissal of the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 30.04.2001, confirmed in appeal on 09.07.2001 and thereafter in review on 30.08.2001, is accordingly set aside. This shall however not preclude the respondents from initiating action fresh against the petitioner in due accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs..." (c) The respondent authorities, even after receipt of the copy of the Court order, did not issue the reinstatement order to the petitioner. However, the respondent authorities initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on 24.01.2011 by sending the articles of charge. The petitioner got issued a contempt notice on 13.12.2010 and filed C.C.No.58 of 2011 against the respondents. Then the respondents have issued the proceedings in Rc.No.18440/A3-2/98-2011 Dt. 03.03.2011 reinstating the petitioner into service and posted at Doulathabad Boys Hostel, Medak District. However, the respondent authorities initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on 24.01.2011 by sending the articles of charge. The petitioner got issued a contempt notice on 13.12.2010 and filed C.C.No.58 of 2011 against the respondents. Then the respondents have issued the proceedings in Rc.No.18440/A3-2/98-2011 Dt. 03.03.2011 reinstating the petitioner into service and posted at Doulathabad Boys Hostel, Medak District. (d) The respondent authorities issued a letter dated 23.07.2011, intimating the petitioner about the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and directing him to participate in the enquiry. Thereafter, on 06.08.2011, the Enquiry Officer visited the school and asked the petitioner to submit a written explanation to the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the girl had been subjected to molestation. He further stated that the girl’s uncle frequently visited the school during school hours, often seeking permission to meet her and, at times, entering the classrooms. So, the petitioner never allowed him. As such, he bore grudge against the petitioner and foisted a false allegation against him and the principal and staff also made him a scapegoat without informing him of the charge. (e) Earlier, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in the petitioner’s absence. No notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to substantiate his case. The Enquiry Officer did not put any questions to the petitioner, nor were any witnesses or the complainant produced during the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, thus, acted not only as the presiding authority but also assumed the role of the prosecuting officer. (f) The respondents issued the impugned order of dismissal vide Proc. No.18440/A3-2/95-12 dated 22.03.2012, which was served on the petitioner on 04.04.2012. The Enquiry Officer did not ask the petitioner’s defence statement. Further, the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to cross- examine the complainant. Though the charge framed against the petitioner is criminal in nature, the respondents did not choose to lodge any police complaint for investigation. Moreover, the respondents failed to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report or the complaint given by the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents initiated the proceedings against the petitioner as an empty formality, but not in accordance with the Rules. Moreover, the respondents failed to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report or the complaint given by the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents initiated the proceedings against the petitioner as an empty formality, but not in accordance with the Rules. This Court in W.P.No.19415 of 2003, while setting aside the dismissal order dated 30.04.2004, observed that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating the action afresh against the petitioner. But, the respondents without following due process of enquiry, removed the petitioner from the service. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed a counter affidavit by contending that the Principal, APR School (G), Medak, suspended the petitioner owing to the incident that occurred on 18.10.1998. The Society had appointed an Enquiry Officer, and he has conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted his report against the petitioner regarding the incident that occurred on 18.10.1998 with a 10th class girl student, stating that the petitioner is local and has been working at Medak for more than a decade. On 18.10.1998, the petitioner tried to rape a girl with a preplan. If the girl had not escaped, a rape was certain. The Enquiry Officer stated that the petitioner wantonly with a preplan, tried to molest the girl student and hence, severe punishment should be awarded. 6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, in view of the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 01.08.2000 was issued to the petitioner proposing dismissal from the service of the Society in accordance with the rules. The petitioner was directed to submit his written explanation to the respondent within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.08.2000 and requested that he be excused on humanitarian grounds and that posting orders be issued to him. As the explanation was not satisfactory, a proceedings was issued on 30.04.2001 dismissing him from service of the Society under Rule 6(1) (iii) read with Rule 10-2(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the APREI Society. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that having aggrieved by the orders of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ petition No. 19415 of 2003. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that having aggrieved by the orders of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ petition No. 19415 of 2003. This Court allowed the Writ petition and set aside the impugned order dt.30.04.2001 on the ground that due procedure was not followed in awarding a major penalty. This Court also made it clear that the above order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating action afresh against the petitioner in due accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with articles of charge in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, alleging involvement in moral turpitude by attempting to outrage the modesty of a 10 th class girl student, and was directed to submit his defence statement. 8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the meanwhile, the petitioner had been reinstated into service pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and posted as an attender at APRS (B), Doulthabad, Medak, and he reported there on 12.05.2011. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the incident. Since the petitioner did not submit his defence statement for the Article of Charge, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report concluding that the petitioner had intentionally, with a pre- planned attempt to rape the 10th class girl student at APRS, Medak on 18.10.1998. 9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of 29 staff members who were working at the time of the incident. Based on the aforementioned statements, the Enquiry Officer concluded that all the school’s staff members condemned the heinous act allegedly committed by the petitioner and demanded his immediate suspension. The mother and uncle of the said student also demanded that immediate action against the petitioner. 10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, based on the Enquiry report, the respondents have informed the petitioner that it was proposed to award the penalty of “dismissal from service of the Society”. Then, the petitioner had accepted his lapses, but had not submitted any new grounds for withdrawing the proposed penalty. The reasons submitted were a repetition of those already furnished in his defence statement, forming part of the enquiry report. Then, the petitioner had accepted his lapses, but had not submitted any new grounds for withdrawing the proposed penalty. The reasons submitted were a repetition of those already furnished in his defence statement, forming part of the enquiry report. Therefore, the petitioner has been dismissed from service of the Society under Rule 6(1)(viii) read with Rule 10.2(a) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the APREI Society. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a reply affidavit by contending that the respondent had narrated a fabricated story and implicated a false charge against the petitioner that the petitioner had molested a 10th class girl and attempted to commit rape, which attracts the criminal procedure. But the respondent did not choose to file a police complaint against the petitioner; no Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry as per the rules; and the total action of the respondent is against the service jurisprudence, and the major penalty of dismissal from service requires a detailed enquiry as per the service rules. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble Court had set aside the order of dismissal from service and observed that, in the event the respondents choose to conduct a fresh enquiry in future, they must strictly follow due procedure by affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including issuance of notice to the delinquent employee. But it doesn't mean that it is mandatory for the Enquiry Officer /disciplined authority to give a notice of enquiry, and serve the allegation of charges or any complaint copy made against the petitioner before sending articles of charges. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in this case, the enquiry officer never allowed the petitioner to give his defence statement or cross examine the prosecution witness who gave a complaint against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct a fair enquiry in accordance with the rules and did not serve a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner at any time. Lastly, submits that the respondent authorities did not follow the procedure before imposing a major penalty such as dismissal from service. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 14. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct a fair enquiry in accordance with the rules and did not serve a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner at any time. Lastly, submits that the respondent authorities did not follow the procedure before imposing a major penalty such as dismissal from service. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 14. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents filed additional counter inter alia reiterating the contents of earlier counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner earlier filed a W.P.No.19415 of 2003 questioning the dismissal from service and this Court set aside the dismissal order and made it clear that the setting aside order shall not prelude the respondent from initiating action afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. As such, the respondent Society issued a charge memo for the allegation of indulging moral turpitude in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services Rules, 1991, and asked the petitioner to submit the defence statement, but the petitioner did not submit a defence statement to the charge memo. 15. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents further submits that the respondent Society subsequently appointed the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the Article of charge and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry proceedings by examining the Petitioner and 29 witnesses with due procedure and submitted the Enquiry report concluding that the petitioner had intentionally, with pre-plan, attempted to rape the girl student on 18.10.1998. 16. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents further submits that after going through the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry officer, the respondent Society came to conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were conducted by following the due process of law and respondent Society issued proceedings dated 01.01.2012 stating that after careful examination of Enquiry report it is proposed to award the penalty of “dismissal from service of the Society” under Rule 6(i)(vii) of the discipline and appeal rules of the respondent Society and, therefore, under Rule 10(2) of the said rules, the petitioner was hereby given an opportunity to submit his representation, if any, on the proposal within (15) days and after reviewing the petitioner’s representation dated 21.02.2012, the Respondent Society issued the dismissal order vide Rc.No. 18440/A3-2/95-12, dt.22.03.2012. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 17. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 17. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the office of the second respondent in the year 1985, and his services were thereafter regularised. As such, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, and by order dated 24.10.1998, he was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had misbehaved with a 10 th standard girl and molested her. For which, he submitted his explanation denying the said allegations. Thereafter, the respondent authorities immediately issued show cause notice to the petitioner for dismissal from service on 01.08.2000, for which he submitted an explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. 18. The respondent authorities issued the impugned proceedings of dismissal from service vide Proc. No.18440/C2/3/99-2001, dated 30.04.2001. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal before the Vice Chairman, APREI Society, Hyderabad, which was rejected on 09.07.2001. At this juncture, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity of hearing and without any enquiry, he had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.19415 of 2003, and this Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 29.10.2010. The observation of the learned single Judge is as follows: “No doubt, the allegations levelled against the petitioner is utmost serious in nature. The seriousness of the charge, however, would not be sufficient in itself for the respondents to dispense with procedural requirements while taking disciplinary action against the petitioner….” When the respondents proposed to impose major penalty of the dismissal from service carrying with it a stigma, it was necessary for the respondents to cause a full-fledged enquiry into the matter with the active participation of the petitioner, duly giving him full opportunity to present his case.” Ultimately, the court passed the following order: “The dismissal of the petitioner from service under proceedings dated 30.04.2001, confirmed in appeal on 09.07.2001 and thereafter, in review on 30.08.2001 is accordingly, set aside. This shall however not preclude the respondents from initiating action afresh against the petitioner in due accordance with law.” 19. This shall however not preclude the respondents from initiating action afresh against the petitioner in due accordance with law.” 19. Subsequent to the above order, the respondent authorities issued a charge Memo dated 24.01.2011 under Rule 20 of the AP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 with the following charges: Article-1: That the said Sri Syed Baderali while working as attender at APR School, Medak, has indulged in the moral turpitude by attempting to outrage modesty of the X class girl student on 18.10.1998. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service. 20. The basis for issuing the charge Memo was (i) the enquiry report of Sri S.C.V. Subrahmanyam, the then A.G.O., submitted on 19.05.1999, (ii) statements from the staff and students, (iii) statement of the 10 th class victim girl. 21. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary, A.P.R.E.I. Society (registered) on 06.08.2011, submitting that the victim girl’s uncle frequently visited the school during school hours. So, the petitioner never allowed him. As such, he bore a grudge against the petitioner and foisted a false allegation against him, and the principal and staff also made him a scapegoat. And without any evidence, the petitioner was suspended from 24.10.1998. Based on this Court’s Order, the authorities conducted an enquiry, and passed the final order on 01.02.2012 wherein it is mentioned that Sri P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Dy. Secretary, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the incident as the charged employee did not submit his defence statement for the Article of charge. 22. When the Enquiry officer asked for an explanation, the petitioner was reluctant to reveal anything and simply said that he did not recollect anything of such allegations and refused to tell anything. When asked to reveal in private, the petitioner simply replied that he did not know anything and had forgotten everything owing to the facts that 12 complete years had passed, he was unable to recall anything. However, the petitioner said he wanted to give it in writing and requested Sri B. Srinivas Naik, PGT in Social, to help draft it, and accordingly, accepted the same. After his written statement, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to submit few a words orally. However, the petitioner said he wanted to give it in writing and requested Sri B. Srinivas Naik, PGT in Social, to help draft it, and accordingly, accepted the same. After his written statement, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to submit few a words orally. His oral submission is as follows: “He said that he has done it out of sheer ignorance, he has attempted the student by mistake and asked pardon on his part, and accepted it was done. When asked to give it in writing, he is afraid of and said that he will be removed from service and has to face imprisonment.” 23. The Enquiry Officer, apart from the petitioner, also examined 25 witnesses and recorded their statements. It is imperative to mention some of the witnesses’ statements. 24. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 21.11.2011. The crux of the enquiry report indicates that the petitioner, intentionally with a preplan, attempted to rape the victim girl on 18.10.1998 at APRS, Medak. In view of the same, the respondent authorities proposed to award the penalty of dismissal from service of the society under Rule 6(1) (viii) of the Discipline and Appeal rules of the APREI society, and under Rule 10(2) of the said Rules, the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his representation, if any, on this proposal within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 25. On 21.02.2012, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating as follows: “That during these twelve long years, I repented and realized that it was the punishment from God. Sir, I prostrate at your feet and beg for mercy.” He further mentioned his family’s condition, the family members and finally prayed to be exonerated from the charges on mercy. 26. In view of the above explanation and taking into consideration the witnesses’ statements as stated supra, it is made clear that the petitioner has tried to rape the victim girl. Had she not escaped from the clutches of the petitioner, the things would have been otherwise. The said enquiry report reveals the petitioner’s character and his arrogant nature. The enquiry report also discloses that Badar Ali said sorry to the victim girl and her uncle by saying “Kallu Mokkutha tappu jarigindi.” Immediately, a staff meeting was held with all the staff members, a resolution was taken, and the same was informed to the Secretary. The said enquiry report reveals the petitioner’s character and his arrogant nature. The enquiry report also discloses that Badar Ali said sorry to the victim girl and her uncle by saying “Kallu Mokkutha tappu jarigindi.” Immediately, a staff meeting was held with all the staff members, a resolution was taken, and the same was informed to the Secretary. As per the staff’s resolution, suspension orders are to be issued to him. Moreover, the oral submissions reveal that he admitted the incident, which is serious in nature. Admitted facts need not be proved. Mere asking for an apology, does not entitle him to escape from the punishment. Though the incident was very serious in nature, the victim girl or her relatives did not file any criminal case as he tendered apology to them. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and others , AIR 2002 SC 3030 with regard to the enquiry. “The mere fact that the Enquiry Officer has noted in his report, “In view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry”, would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of the evidence. Though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness Sri R.A. Vashist, Ex. CVI./Rly., New Delhi, in support of the charges, he was not examined.” In the present case, the petitioner himself gave two statements, one was written with the help of a teacher and another one was an oral submission before the Enquiry Officer. Not only that 27 witnesses were examined who are related to the said school. In the said circumstances, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present set of facts on hand. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that mere service of a show cause notice preceding the order imposing such a penalty was not enough, and he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab , 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504 In the case at hand, the punishment decided by the authorities is not only based on the show cause notice but also on a thorough enquiry conducted in accordance with the Order of this Court. Hence, this case is also not applicable to the set of facts on hand. State of Punjab , 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504 In the case at hand, the punishment decided by the authorities is not only based on the show cause notice but also on a thorough enquiry conducted in accordance with the Order of this Court. Hence, this case is also not applicable to the set of facts on hand. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner intentionally indulged in the said incident. While conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice, and the question of arbitrariness and illegality does not arise. As such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.