A bare look at the order passed by the third respondent does not indicate that any enquiry was conducted as required under law to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. The report of the fourth respondent dated 4.10.2002 does not show as to any enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and he was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who spoke before the fourth respondent. Further, it is not the fourth respondent who conducted enquiry into the matter, it is the Mandal Revenue Inspector, who conducted the purported enquiry and submitted report to the fourth respondent and in turn, the fourth respondent submitted the same to the third respondent, and the third respondent has taken the said report as gospel truth and passed the impugned, which was confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2. No enquiry has been conducted to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. Only by placing reliance on the mere report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the third respondent passed the cancellation order. The third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is supposed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter in examining the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer/Mandal Revenue Inspector as well as the witnesses/cardholders who gave evidence in the purported enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, but such exercise was not undertaken by the third respondent before passing the order dated 11.2.2003. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order
