IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2011 of 2007 Between: 1 The Govt of AP., rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government Roads & Buildings Department, J Block, 5th floor, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Engineer-in-Chief , Roads and Buildings, Department, Errum Manzil, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri R.S.Prakasa Rao, Assistant Executive Engineer (R&B) R/o.Plot No.74/B, D.No.9-41, Naiduthota Gopalapatnam, Vizag .....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 to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order of direction calling for the records relating to the orders of the AP Administrative Tribunal, dated 21.2.2006 in OA.No.2914 of 2004 with M.A.No.1808 of 2005 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and not maintainable in law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: MR.JAKKAMSETTI RAVINDRA The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 2914 of 2004 with M.A.No.1808 of 2005 dated 21.02.2006, the present writ petition is filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the respondent- applicant was appointed temporarily as Junior Engineer in Roads and Buildings Department, that he joined duty on 22-01-1980 in R&B Special Division, Gajuwaka and while he was working in National Highway Investigation Division, Visakhapatnam, he applied leave from 04-03-1992 to 30-04-1992, which was sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer (R&B) N.H Circle, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings dated 19-05-1992. Further, the respondent neither extended his leave nor reported to duty. Petitioners state that the respondent after long unauthorized absence from 01-05-1992 to 23-05-1996 i.e. for more than four years, he approached the authorities requesting posting orders duly stating that he went on leave from 01-05-1992 due to pressing domestic problems. Thereafter, he did not send any reminders to the authorities seeking posting orders but, again approached for posting orders on 20-02-2001 i.e. after a gap of five years. However, the respondent was not allowed to join duty and he was issued charge memo dated 15-03-2001 framing the following charge: Article-I “That the said Sri R.S. Prakash Rao, Asst. Executive Engineer (R&B) (Zone-I) while working in NH Circle, Visakahaptnanm has stayed away from duty w.e.f. 01.05.1992 and there is no leave application from him for the period from 01.05.1992 till submission of willingness to join duty. Thus, the above Asst. Executive Engineer (R&B) (Zone.I) is unauthorisedly absent from duty from 01.05.1992 onwards without prior permission or sanction of leave from the competent authority. Thus, he has violated Rule 4(i) of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” Basis of Charge “Sri R.S. Prakash Rao, Asst. Executive Engineer (R&B) (Zone-I) while working in NH Circle, Visakahaptnanm has stayed away from duty w.e.f. 01.05.1992 and there is no leave application from him. Thus, Sri R.S. Prakash Rao AEE (R&B) is unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 01.05.1992. Thus, he has violated Rule 4(i) of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” A departmental enquiry was held and, after examining the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice duly enclosing a copy of the enquiry officer’s report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 29-01-2004, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of punishment of removal from service, the respondent-applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal observed that one Sri T.Suryanarayana, Executive Engineer, R&B, Vizianagaram, who was appointed as enquiry officer, ought to have conducted detailed enquiry as contemplated under Sub-rule 6 of Rule 20 to Rule 23 of APCS (CCA) Rules, that mandatory provisions have not at all been followed by the enquiry officer and that the enquiry officer has not recorded his findings, which would reveal from G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 29-01-2004, and has simply stated that ‘the Accused Officer has applied leave from 01-05-1992 onwards due to ill-health and could not attend the duties’. The Tribunal further observed that though the enquiry officer has not recorded any finding, the Government differed with the same and issued notice. The Tribunal observing that the petitioners are at liberty to proceed against the respondent on the charge of unauthorised absence, that the enquiry has not been conducted in consonance with the provisions of the APCS (CCA) Rules, set aside G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 29-01-2004 on technical grounds. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioners are at liberty to proceed against the respondent for the alleged misconduct as per the provisions of APCS (CCA) Rules and it directed to treat the period of absence in accordance with rules. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that since the respondent was unauthorisedly absent for a long period i.e. for more than 9 years, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioners to treat the period of absence in accordance with APCS (CCA) Rules. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the enquiry was conducted in accordance with APCS (CCA) Rules, no further enquiry need be conducted on the charge of unauthorized absence. Since the enquiry was not conducted by the enquiry officer in consonance with the APCS (CCA) Rules, the Tribunal was justified in granting liberty to the petitioners to proceed against the respondent on the charge of unauthorised absence and directing to treat the leave period in accordance with rules. Hence we do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ C.V.RAMULU,J Dt:10-07-2008 usd