IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21017 of 2005 Between: 1 The Govt of A.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary, H.M. & F.W, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Medical Health, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The District Medical & health Officer, Kadapa, Chinna Chimle Panchayat. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri O. Ramanna, Ex-L.D.C. Pulivendula, Kadapa District, R/o. H.No. 6.134/8, Shankarapurna, Cuddapah. .....RESPONDENT 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 any writ or proceedings more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and to call for the records related to and connected with the order dt.27.08.2004 in O.A.No.26382001 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same as erroneous and contrary to law and principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking c ertiorari to call for the records related to and connected with the order dated 27-08-2004 in O.A.No.2638 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash or set aside the same as erroneous, contrary to law and principles of natural justice. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The applicant approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying the Tribunal to declare the inaction of the respondents/petitioners herein to reinstate the applicant into service as LDC consequent on his acquittal in Crl.A.No.152 of 1988 on the ﬁle of the District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, by judgment dated 24-08-1989, and to pay arrears of salary and all consequent beneﬁts up to date of reinstatement, as illegal arbitrary and unwarranted. The Tribunal disposed of the OA and directed the authorities to reinstate the applicant into service within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and with regard to the payment of salary for the period he is out of service and also payment of salary during the interregnum period the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders and for this purpose the applicant was directed to ﬁle a petition within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant was appointed as LDC on 01-07-1963 in the Office of DM&HO, Kadapa. While he was working at Government Hospital, Proddutur, Kadapa, he was trapped by the ACB authorities and convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and later he was removed from service by the District Medical and Health Oﬃcer, Kadapa, vide his proceedings Rc.No.4090/B1/75, dated 02-03-1976. Later, the Government modiﬁed the penalty of removal into dismissal of service and the same has become ﬁnal. While the matter stood thus, a memo was said to be received from the Government by the District Medical and Health Oﬃcer, Kadapa, dated 28-12-1977 requesting to reappoint the applicant, pending ﬁnalization of his appeal before the Criminal Court. As per the memo, the applicant was appointed on 10-01- 1978, he was joined on 17-01-1978 and worked up to 28- 10-1978. Meanwhile, on coming to know that the memo issued by the government was ﬁctitious order, the applicant was dismissed from service on 03-01-1979. Later, a case was registered against the applicant for misappropriation of government funds. The applicant ﬁled the OA seeking reinstatement into service basing on the acquittal in Crl.A.No.152 of 1988, but he did not challenge the dismissal order dated 03-01-1979. Learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the ACB conducted trap and as the applicant found guilty he was convicted, pursuant to which an order of removal was passed and the same was modiﬁed to that of dismissal. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Tribunal committed gross error in directing reinstatement when once, pursuant to the ﬁctitious order passed, he took advantage and served the government and thereafter he committed misappropriation and number of cases were registered against him. The Tribunal ought not to have granted reinstatement, particularly, when he ﬁled the OA after a long lapse of 22 years as the dismissal order was passed on 03-01-1979. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the dismissal order dated 03-01-1979 was not served upon him. He was not aware of these things. However, there is a ﬁnding that the petitioner is not responsible for the forged document. He further contended that there is no error in the award of the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, by virtue of the ﬁctitious memo the applicant was reappointed and subsequently it was noticed that even after reappointment he committed irregularities and misappropriation. It is to be noticed that basing on the earlier trap case the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal under Rule 19 (3) of A.P. Civil Service (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules 1963, which attained ﬁnality. When once he was convicted the department has removed him from service and that attained ﬁnality and he has not challenged the same. He slept over the matter and only by virtue of ﬁctitious memo he was reappointed on 17-01-1978 and he served up to 28-10-1978. Once the applicant is convicted the authorities have taken into account the conviction made by the criminal court and imposed a major punishment of dismissal from service. The order passed by the Tribunal directing reinstatement is unwarranted and thus the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction and the Tribunal committed an error in directing reinstatement and directing the applicant to make an application with regard to the salary. Apart from that, Section 21 (3) of the A.P. Tribunals Act prescribed limitation. The Tribunal did not consider limitation and in the absence of an application seeking condonation of delay, the Tribunal ought not have entertained the OA and granted the relief. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. However, the writ petitioners are directed to pay the salary for the period from 17-01- 1978 to 28-10-1978, if it is not already paid. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 12th November, 2008 SKM