HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.12012 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) The dismissal of O.A.No.297 of 1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by the order dated 28/01/2000, led the petitioner therein to file the present writ petition and on his death during the pendency of the writ petition, his wife and children came on record as his legal representatives. The writ petitioner claimed to be entitled to reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits on the ground that his termination by the order dated 24/09/1993 was illegal. He contended that after service of the charge memo about his irregularity in attendance from January, 1988 to October 1988 and about his unauthorized absence from 31/08/1988 to 19/01/1989 and from 10/02/1989 to 14/03/1989, he was not given an opportunity of being heard. When originally an order of termination was passed without such an opportunity, he filed O.A.No.876 of 1989 and succeeded therein and he was reinstated into service with all the consequential benefits. Subsequently, in the second round of disciplinary proceedings also he claims to have not been given a proper opportunity, but the Tribunal found that the writ petitioner was a habitual defaulter in attendance and he was sent notices and copies of the proceedings of the Court of enquiry to his recorded home address to make his representations or submissions against the proposed action. In fact, it was noticed by the Tribunal that he submitted a representation which has been carefully considered by the General Manager and the General Manager imposed the penalty of removal from service on an appropriate consideration of all the facts placed before him. The Tribunal further observed that against the order of termination, when the writ petitioner filed O.A.No.426 of 1994, he was directed to exhaust the departmental remedy of appeal and the writ petitioner approached the Tribunal again after the appeal was dismissed by a speaking order. The Tribunal found that the conclusions of both the original authority and the appellate authority did not warrant any interference due to the habitual nature of irregular attendance and unauthorized absence by the writ petitioner and the absence of any reasonable explanation for the same in spite of an opportunity. The Tribunal also did not consider the punishment to be disproportionate and dismissed the original application. The writ petitioner mainly contended in the writ petition that the General Manager who passed the termination order himself passed the order in appeal on his promotion as the Additional Director General in the meanwhile. His main ground of challenge is only the said passing of orders at both the levels by the same officer. Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is heard. It is seen from the material papers on record that the penalty of removal of service was imposed by one D.Raj Gopal, General Manager, by the order dated 24/09/1993 and the order in appeal was passed by one K.Sampath on 23/02/1998 in his capacity as Additional Director General, Ordinance Factories and appellate authority. The same was reiterated in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and it was stated on oath that the authorities who passed the original order of penalty and the appellate authority are different and distinct. Consequently, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Even otherwise, the factual conclusions confirmed by the Tribunal are not disputed as a matter of fact in this writ petition. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and the same is dismissed, in the circumstances without costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-11-2009 SKM