(1.) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated to 23-11-2018 passed in WP No.14085 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court set aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the writ petitioner-respondent herein. Assailing the said order, this writ appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Manager in the appellant-Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, (formerly known as Rayalaseema Grameena Bank) in the year 1986. In the year 2000, when he was working as such, at Kotha, Nellore Branch, Kadapa district, an inspection was conducted in the said branch and on the premise that the respondent committed certain irregularities in discharge of his duties as Manager, a charge memo dated 09-05- 2000 was issued, to which he submitted his explanation on 08-06-2000 and thereafter, respondent was transferred to Kadapa Branch. On 04-12-2001, the respondent was issued with another charge sheet on the premise that he had involved in embezzlement of Bank funds, to which he submitted his explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled against the respondent. It is borne out from the record that the respondent seems to have made representations to the enquiry officer expressing his inability to attend the enquiry on account of fracture of his leg and other health issues. It appears on few occasions, the enquiry officer conceded to his requests to postpone the enquiry but, ultimately the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report on 05-06-2002 and basing on the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, to which an explanation was submitted by him. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 03-09- 2002 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service was passed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed WP No.17878 of 2002 which was disposed reserving liberty to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority and accordingly the respondent had unsuccessfully filed an appeal. Further aggrieved by the affirming order passed by the appellate authority, respondent filed the present writ petition and by the order impugned, the writ petition was allowed mainly on the ground that the respondent was not afforded an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and his requests to postpone the hearing of the enquiry proceedings, on account of his health issues was not heeded to and such an attitude on the part of the enquiry officer amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order was also faulted on the ground that it was not a speaking order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal by the respondents in the writ petition.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.