law. Under Rule 21(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’), if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the enquiry, it may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further enquiry and report. Under Sub-Rule (2) thereof, if the disciplinary authority does not agree with the findings of the inquiring authority, it can record its own tentative reasons for disagreement on any article of charge, requiring the Government servant to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant. This being the position in law, the State Government is not vested with the power to appoint a fresh enquiry officer. Be that as it may, the right to consideration for promotion is recognized as a fundamental right. Therefore, the Court or the Tribunal cannot ignore the arbitrary action of the employer in denying such right to any employee. As noted hereinbefore, when the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges, denial of consideration of promotion to the petitioner affects his fundamental right. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in rejecting the relief to the petitioner.
