HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No. 22580 OF 2000 Monday, the Thirteenth Day of September, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. K.Samrajyam w/o T.Venkatapathi Rao Petitioner AND The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, Sangareddy 502 001 and others Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, dated 13.10.2000 dismissing O.A. No. 21 of 2000 filed by the petitioner herein assailing the Order of Removal dated 22.06.1989 passed by the District Telecom District Engineer, Sangareddy, in culmination of the enquiry pursuant to the charge memo, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner while working as Telephone Operator at Sangareddy, proceeded on earned leave from 24.7.1987 to 8.12.1987, which was extended by her on medical grounds. By letter dated 2.1.1988, the first respondent informed the petitioner to join duty as she had only 26 days of earned leave and 52 days of half pay leave as on 31.12.1987 and availment of any leave in excess, would be treated as extraordinary leave. However, by letter dated 8.4.1988, she was sanctioned leave till 4.2.1988 and by letter dated 19.4.1988, she was advised to report to duty since she had no leave from 3.2.1988 and was also called upon to submit a revised application for leave from 8.3.1988. Since the petitioner did not report to duty, by telegram dated 2.6.1988, the petitioner was asked to report for duty, failing which her case would be referred to Medical Board for examination and fitness and that her request for transfer also can be considered only on her joining duty. The petitioner without reporting to duty submitted an application seeking extension of leave, which was not sanctioned. Consequently, a Charge Memo dated 22.6.1989 came to be issued and since the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceedings, she was set exparte and in culmination of the same, order dated 22.6.1989 came to be passed removing her from service, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the order impugned herein, has dismissed the O.A. on the ground of laches, observing that if the abnormal delay of ten years is condoned in approaching appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance, it would lead to serious chaos in running the administration. The Tribunal having addressed itself on the merits, has observed that the petitioner was very much aware of the proceedings including her removal order dated 22.6.1989. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, had the petitioner been ignorant of the passing of removal order, she would have challenged the action of respondents in not permitting her to join duty in August, 1998 itself. This apart, the fact that she sought fresh appointment by letter dated 12.10.1998, further fortifies the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the order dated 22.6.1989 removing her from service. In this scenario, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had avoided to receive the charge memo and is, therefore, not justified in pleading that she did not receive the charge memo dated 22.6.1989 for the simple reason that till the issuance of the charge Memo, the petitioner had received every letter and proceeding. Above all, she did not choose to move little finger for about ten years after the proceedings started. Having gone through the order impugned, we do not see any illegality warranting interference by this court. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief on the ground of laches and the writ petition does not deserve consideration. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy September 13, 2010 MAS.