IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13018 of 1999 Between: 1 The Govt of A.P., rep by its Secretary to Govt Agril. & Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2 The Commissioner of Agriculture., Govt of A.P., Hyd., 3 The Joint Director of Agriculture, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar Dist., ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Osman Bin Omer S/o Omer Bin Kaleem Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Registrar, A.P., Admn. Tribunal, Hyd., .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the Hon'ble A.P., Administrative Tribunal and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the orders of the Hon'ble A.P., Admn., Tribunal passed in OA No.7957/97 dt 9-3-99 as illegal and unconstitutional and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents: SRI C. SRINIVASA BABA. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :13018 of 1999 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order of the tribunal passed in O.A.No:7957 of 1997 on 9.3.1999. The 1st respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. He filed the above O.A., seeking to set aside the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent therein, dated 25.10.1996, which are communicated to the applicant on 21.2.1997, as illegal and arbitrary. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was working as Junior Assistant and he applied for casual leave from 25.2.1985 to 28.2.1985 and subsequently, he extended the leave up to 31.5.1985 without giving leave address and thereafter, he did not apply for any extension. Hence, memos dated 21.7.1987 and 21.8.1987 were issued, but the same were returned unserved. Then, a charge memo dated 14.3.1988 was issued, but the same was also returned and then the charge memo was published in A.P. Gazettee. In spite of the same, no explanation was submitted and therefore, his absence was construed as willful and negligence and final orders of dismissal were issued vide proceedings dated 25.10.1996. On that, the applicant filed O.A.No.4940 of 1997 and the same was disposed of with a direction to issue posting orders. Then, on the review filed by the authorities, the same was allowed. Then, the applicant filed W.P.No.31177 of 1997 against the orders in review and the same was dismissed. Now, the present O.A. was filed against the orders of dismissal. The tribunal having observed that the respondents-authorities have not conducted any enquiry as required under the relevant provisions viz., Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 before imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and this is a serious procedural irregularity warranting interference by the tribunal, set aside the impugned order and allowed the O.A. However, the tribunal made it clear that the order does not preclude the authorities from conducting regular enquiry in accordance with the provisions of APCS (CC&A) Rules, if they so desire and passing appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with Rules. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the authorities. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the charge memo was returned unserved and then, the authorities published the same in the Gazette and inspite of the same, there is no response from the applicant. The material on record as well as the order impugned goes to show that he was absent for more than 11 ½ years without any intimation or extension. In regard to his absence for all these years without any intimation to the department in spite of the memos and the gazette publication, no explanation is forthcoming from the applicant. Apart from that, the silence on the part of the applicant leads to draw and adverse inference against his attitude and the conduct in discharge of his duties. When the applicant himself, is not available even for service of memos or the charge memo, it is very unreasonable to say that the authorities have not complied with the provisions of the C.C.A rules and therefore, there is no other go except to observe that the question of violation of the C.C.A rules in a case of this nature, does not arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the absence of the applicant for a period of more than 11 ½ years and having treated the applicant as habitual absentee, We feel it appropriate to justify the order of the authorities dismissing the applicant from service. Hence, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the tribunal. No costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice S.Ashok Kumar Dated:4.4.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :13018 of 1999 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 04/04/2008 ,