IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11327 of 2009 Between: 1 The Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts) Kurnool East Sub- Division,Kurnool 2 The Superintendent of Posts Offices Kurnool Division,Kurnool 3 The Postmaster General Kurnool Region,Kurnool-2 4 The Director General Posts Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 5 Md.Abdul Khader Inspector (Postal) & Inquiry Officer Dhone Sub Division Dhone District : Kurnool ..... PETITIONER(S) AND C.Abraham S/o. C.Jeevaratnam Vorvakallu S/o. Kurnool Head Office Kurnool District .....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 an order or direction more particulaly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records with regard to order dt 23-02-2009 in O.A No.136 of 2009 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary contrary to law and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent : MR. SANKA RAMAKRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) Earlier the respondent had filed O.A.No.851 of 2003 of the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, questioning the order of removal, dated 5.6.1997, passed by the petitioner No.1, which was also confirmed by the 2nd petitioner. Against which a revision was filed and the revisional authority also rejected the same vide order dated 26.8.1999. Aggrieved by the same, a review petition was also filed by the respondent and the same was also rejected by order dated 2.4.2003. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the respondent filed the said O.A.No.851 of 2003 and the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 27.8.2008 set aside the order of removal remitted the matter back to the 2nd petitioner herein to appoint ad-hoc disciplinary authority and also to issue directions to the inquiry officer to conduct inquiry afresh taking into consideration the observations made therein and to complete the disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of the said order. Though the removal order was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is the contention of the respondent that without reinstating him into service, enquiry cannot be conducted and therefore he filed O.A.No.136 of 2009 to reinstate him into service and then conduct enquiry in accordance with the earlier order of the Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 23.2.2009 disposed of the said O.A.No.136 of 2009 at the admission stage directing the petitioners herein to first reinstate the respondent and then proceed with the de novo enquiry. So far as the back wages are concerned, the Tribunal did not express any opinion on the point and it will be decided after the conclusion of the enquiry and till the reinstatement is made, proposed enquiry shall not be held. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department filed the present writ petition contending that as per Rule 12(5) of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, whenever an order of removal from employment is imposed upon a Sevak, the Sevak shall be deemed to have been put off his duty by the Appointing Authority from the date of original removal order and the same shall continue to remain on put-off his duty until further orders. It is stated that by virtue of the said Rule, the respondent shall be deemed to have been put off his duty and therefore the order of the Tribunal directing him to reinstate into service is illegal and contrary. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that said Rule applies to the respondent who was removed from service. The order of removal of the respondent was dated 5.6.1997. Therefore, the respondent is deemed to have been put off duty from 5.6.1997 and he is entitled for all the consequential benefits for which he is entitled during the period of his put off duty. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside holding that the respondent shall be deemed to have been put off his duty by the Appointing Authority from 5.6.1997. We also direct the Appointing Authority to pass a formal order putting off the respondent from his duty from 5.6.1997 and pay the subsistence allowance, if any, if the respondent is entitled for the period during which he is deemed to have been put off his duty as per Rules. The enquiry shall be conducted as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier O.A.No.851 of 2003, dated 27.8.2008. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15.6.2009 kpr