HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26714 OF 2010 Between: The Director of School Education Department, Hyderabad and one another ………….Petitioners AND P.N. V. Ratnamala, Secondary Grade Teacher, O/o M.P. Elementary School and three others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 20.11.2009 passed in O.A.No. 6369 of 2005 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal. O.A.No.6369 of 2005 was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the first respondent-applicant, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings dated 1.1.2005 issued by the second petitioner-issued by the District Educational Officer, East Godavari District and consequently direct the petitioners to reinstate and continue the applicant as SGT with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the second petitioner in discharging the applicant from her duties without issuing any notice and opportunity and without conducting any enquiry as per CCA Rules as illegal. That O.A was allowed setting aside the order passed by the second petitioner dated 1.1.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred this Writ Petition. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-first respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 14.8.19978 and in pursuance of that she was posted to Polavaram Mandal of East Godavari District and subsequently; she was transferred and posted to U. Kothapally Mandal on 19.8.1998, there the applicant proceeded on Maternity Leave from 20.8.1998 to 14.10.1998 and subsequently she submitted a representation on 15.10.1998 requesting the second respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Zillaparishad, East Godavari District at Kakinada, to issue necessary orders permitting her to join duty, but no orders were passed. It is stated that the applicant-first respondent made several representations but in vain ultimately the second petitioner-District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, communicated the proceedings dated 1.1.2005 discharging her from duties. Hence, she filed O.A. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal had set aside the impugned orders dated 1.1.2005 issued by the second petitioner herein without giving any liberty to take action against the applicant in accordance with law. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is evident that the applicant-first respondent proceeded on Medical Leave from 20.8.1998 to 14.10.1998 and thereafter the leave was extended from time to time and after expiry of leave, she requested the second respondent to issue necessary posting orders permitting her to join duty. It is no doubt true that the applicant-first respondent was absent from duty for more than five years. According to the Circular issued by the Government dated 25.12.1991, if a member of a service remains absent and gives a joining report, it should be ensured by the competent authority that he/she is permitted to join immediately, pending initiation of disciplinary action for unauthorized absence. But such course of action has not been initiated against the applicant-first respondent; therefore, the unauthorized absence should be treated as ‘dies non’ in accordance with the Note-I under Fundamental Rule 18 and Rule 5 (a) of A.P. Leave Rules, the Rule further clarifies that treatment of unauthorized absence, as ‘dies non’ is distinct from disciplinary action taken or to be taken against the employees concerned. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly observed that the applicant-first respondent has not been afforded opportunity by conducting an enquiry into the allegations of unauthorized absence and the entire action of the petitioners is opposed to the basic principles of natural justice. Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the period of absence shall be treated as ‘dies non’ and this order does not preclude the Government to follow the procedure under law and take action against the applicant-first respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ P. SWAROOP EDDY, J DATE: 08.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.