IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3478 of 2004 Between: 1 The Director General of Fire Services, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Fire Officer, Central Region, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Fire Officer, Hyderabad. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Mohd.Yousuf, Ex-Driver, R/o.Rahamathnagar, Yousufuguda Fire Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records connected with order dated 11.3.2003 in O.A.No.4949 of 2000 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioners: ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.SURENDER RAO The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per GB.J.) The Writ Petition is filed by the State assailing the order passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in O.A.No.4949 of 2000, dated 11.3.2003. 2. The respondent was initially appointed as Fireman in 1962. Thereafter he was promoted as Driver-Operator in 1975. While so he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 2.2.1983 to 21.10.1986, for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately he was dismissed from service. However, on appeal, the order of dismissal was set aside and substituted it by another punishment. Accordingly he was reinstated into service in 1986. While he was discharging duty, on 29.12.1992 he fell sick and consequently he was admitted in Osmania General Hospital, but, however, he did not intimate the further progress. From the date of admission in the hospital, he did not intimate the authorities about his absence. Therefore a charge sheet was issued to him by the Department for the alleged unauthorized absence, but it could not be served on him as in the address given by him, he was not available. Thereafter, an ex parte enquiry was conducted and ultimately he was dismissed from service by an order dated 12.1.1994. The respondent did not challenge the order of dismissal, but only on 27.3.1995 filed an appeal to the authorities, but the same was also dismissed. Though he filed a representation to the Government, the same was also dismissed, but, however, the date of dismissal was changed from 29.12.1992 to 12.1.1994. Against the said order, he filed the above OA before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal holding that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the enquiry report was also not furnished to the respondent, allowed the OA. Against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the State. 3. The learned Advocate General submits that the conduct of the respondent- employee is highly objectionable. He was in the habit of absenting himself unauthorisedly from duties. He further submits that he was absent for a period of three years on earlier occasion and on that ground he was dismissed from service, but, however, taking a lenient view in the matter, the said dismissal order was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated into service. Again on 29.12.1992 when he fell sick, he was admitted in the Osmania General Hospital, and thereafter it is not known what had happened to him. It is only on 27.3.1995 he filed an appeal before the Government. It is his case that if the respondent was really sick, nothing prevented him from intimating the employer about the sickness and the treatment, which was being taken by him from time to time. But, however, he kept quiet without informing the Department and when his representation was dismissed by the Government, he sought to challenge the said order. Therefore, such an employee is not entitled for any relief. Thus, he submits that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel Mr.M.Surender Rao, appearing for the respondent-employee vehemently submits that the action of the 1st petitioner is wholly illegal and contrary to law and the respondent is entitled for protection under the statutory provisions. He submits that the respondent was admitted by the authorities themselves in the Hospital on 29.12.1992 and he was in the hospital for about three months and thereafter he was shifted to another private Doctor for better treatment and he was found fit to join duty only on 13.3.1995, and having coming to know about his dismissal from service, he filed an appeal before the authorities, but the same was dismissed. 5. We are not impressed with the conduct of the employee. If really the respondent was sick and taking treatment from the Osmania General Hospital, he could have intimated the same to the employer or when he was taking treatment from private doctor, he is under obligation to inform the same to the authorities, but for the reasons best known to him, he failed to do so. On the other hand he is trying to find fault with the authorities that no proper enquiry has been conducted. It is to be noted that the authorities conducted ex parte enquiry on the ground that no address was given by the respondent and he was also not found at his last given address and therefore there is no other option left with the authorities except to proceed with ex parte enquiry. In this regard, the Department cannot be found fault with, more especially when we consider his previous conduct, the employee was in the habit of absenting himself for years together. In such a situation the employee does not deserve any sympathy from the Court. 6. Question of serving the Enquiry Officer’s report would not arise as the whereabouts of the respondent are not known as he has not intimated his address to the Department. Under those circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the enquiry conducted was not in accordance with Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules cannot be sustained. When the petitioner is trying to exert his rights, at the same time he fails to identify his own duties. In view of the conduct of the employee, no interference is warranted by this Court more especially the indisciplined officers should not be kept in service. Under those circumstances, we are unable to concur with the findings of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of dismissal dated 22.3.1999 stands confirmed. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ---------------------------- (G.BIKSHAPATHY, J.) 23rd March, 2005. -------------------------- SSR (P.S.NARAYANA,J.) Rule Nisi is made absolute as above. Witness Sri Devinder Gupta, Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on this Wednesday, the 23rd day of March, 2005. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Director General of Fire Services, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Fire Officer, Central Region, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Fire Officer, Hyderabad. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 6 2 CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 7 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CPK}