IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3956 of 2008 Between: Cheraku Dhanunjaya, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. Ranpalli, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Administrative Officer/ Disciplinary Authority, ECIL Post, NFC, Hyderabad-62. 2 The Deputy Chief Executive, ECIL Post, N.F.C. Hyderabad - 62. 3 The Chief Executive, N.F.C. ECIL Post, N.F.C. Hyderabad - 62. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, writ of certiorari calling for the records in Order No. NFC/Vig./1/(01)/5776/20, dt. 09-1-2003, consequential orders of the Appellate Authority in Order NFC/Vig./1/(01)/5776/20, dt. 03-11-2004 and orders of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 11-7-2007 in OA No. 1394/2004 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, inviolation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.Rajasekhara Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3956 OF 2008 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Helper ‘A’ in the respondents organization on 14.12.1999 and since then he has been discharging duties to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent authorities. Surprisingly, he received a notice requiring him to submit his explanation for non-disclosure of the crime, which is said to have been pending against him, at the time of filing of attestation form for appointment. In response to the same, on 01.07.2000, he submitted explanation stating that he was not aware of the case pending against him at the time of filing the attestation form and in fact, there is only a civil dispute between his family and neighbours. He was also served with a charge memo. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 31.07.2002. While the enquiry was going on, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer persuaded him to accept the allegations by promising that if the charges were accepted he would be let off by taking a lenient view. On believing their promise, he accepted the allegations leveled against him. But, surprisingly the enquiry officer submitted his report that the charges framed against him are proved. Instead of taking a lenient view, respondent No.1 passed an order dated 09.01.2003 removing him from the service. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Executive/Appellate Authority, but the appellate authority, without considering all the facts and circumstances, in a routine manner, confirmed the order of removal. Aggrieved thereby, he filed a revision before the Chief Executive and that was also rejected. Questioning the same, he filed O.A.No.1339 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was also dismissed. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1339 of 2004, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt.N.Shoba contends that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and his neighbours with regard to demolition of the compound wall and therefore, the charge i.e., non-furnishing of the said dispute and the crime registered pursuant thereto, in the attestation form is very trivial in nature and as such, the writ petition may be allowed. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and upon perusing the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner had not mentioned in the attestation form with regard to a crime registered against him in relation to a civil dispute between his family and his neighbours. Since non-mentioning of the said crime in the attestation form which is very trivial in nature, a lenient view can be taken against the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. In the result, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled only to continuity of service and other attendant benefits, such as increments etc. notionally. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any back-wages. The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date: 23.06.2008 _________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. GS