IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13235 of 2000 Between: M.Phani Chandra Rao, S/o.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Postman, Guntur Bazar, P.O.Guntur, R/o.S.N.Puram, Sivaji Café Centre, Door No.23-22-4, vijayawada – 11, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 01. Union of India Rep.by the Post Master General Vijayawada Region, A.P.Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 02. Superintendent of Post Offices, Guntur Division, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 03. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices J.V.V.J.South Sub-Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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 issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of Memo No.B II/133/MPR dated 06-04-1998 and Memo No.B II/133/MPR dated 20-04- 1995 and quash the same and consequently set aside the orders of the tribunal dated 01-04-1999 in O.A.No.446 of 1998 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah). This writ petition is filed questioning the termination notice order dated 20.04.1995 and the termination order dated 06.04.1998 as well as the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 01.04.1999 passed in O.A.No.446 of 1998. The petitioner was appointed as postman under relaxation of normal recruitment rules to the cadre of Post Man, Guntur on compassionate grounds in view of the death of his father. He was deputed to undergo practical training at Guntur Head Post Office and theoretical training at the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Head Quarters, for a period of 10 days from 10.03.1993. He assumed charge of postman, Bazar Post Office, Guntur. While so, the second respondent-Superintendent of Post Offices, Guntur Division issued a notice dated 20.04.1995 under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 terminating his services with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of the said notice on the petitioner. Challenging the said termination notice order dated 20.04.1995, the petitioner filed O.A.650/1995 on the file of the Tribunal and consequently sought direction to the respondents herein to continue him in the said post without any hindrance. In the said O.A.650/1995 the Tribunal passed an interim order dated 16.05.1995 suspending the termination notice order dated 20.04.1995. Thus, the petitioner continued in service during pendency of the said O.A.No.650 of 1995. After filing a counter by the respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. by order dated 18.03.1998 and the earlier interim suspension of termination notice order was vacated. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the consequential order dated 06.04.1998 terminating the services of the petitioner. Questioning the said order dated 06.04.1998 the petitioner filed O.A.No.446 of 1998 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same has been dismissed by order dated 01.04.1999. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed, contending that the petitioner was appointed as a postman in a permanent post and that the Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 has no application and he was terminated without service of any notice and therefore, the termination order is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal, dated 18.03.1998 in O.A.No.650 of 1995 indicates that as per the counter filed by the respondent-department, the petitioner was appointed as postman on compassionate grounds on account of death of his father and he joined duty on 08.04.1993, but subsequently on police verification they came to know that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.103 of 1992 under Section 110-A and ‘C’ of the Code of Criminal Procedure within Satyanarayanapuram Police Station limits and he was bound over by the Commissioner of Police for a period of six months after obtaining a bond for Rs.2000/- with two sureties and he was also involved in Criminal Case Nos.1951 to 1955 of 1992 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code within Satyanarayanapuram Police Station limits and those Criminal Cases were pending trial before the III Munsif Magistrate Court, Vijayawada and the petitioner while reporting duty, had suppressed the facts of the said pendency of the Criminal Cases, and submitted attestation form stating that no Criminal Case is pending against him. As the said application was found incorrect, the impugned action was taken against the petitioner and the services of the petitioner were terminated by exercising powers under Rule-5(1) of the aforesaid Rules. The Tribunal while dismissing the O.A.650/1995 further noticed that the details of pending Criminal Cases Nos.1951 to 1955 of 1992 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code within Satyanarayanapuram Police Station limits before the III Munsif Magistrate Court, Vijayawada against the petitioner as furnished in the counter was not at all denied and no rejoinder or reply disputing the said facts was filed. The order in O.A.650/1995 has become final and the same has not been questioned by the petitioner. As the O.A.650/1995 was dismissed vacating the interim order dated 20.04.1995, the 2nd respondent issued termination order dated 06.04.1998. In fact the petitioner himself filed one of the Criminal Case No.279 of 1992 on the file of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in which the petitioner was shown as Accused No.1, and for non-service of non-bailable warrants only, the said case was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner did not question the earlier termination notice order dated 20.04.1995 in O.A.No.446 of 1998. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to question the original termination notice order dated 20.04.1995 in this writ petition as the said order was already upheld by the Tribunal in O.A.No.650 of 1995, against which no writ petition has been filed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J 29th July, 2009 Ivd/Dsr