IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2213 of 2000 Between: Ch. Shyam Babu son of Ch. Moses. R/o 1-10-397/16, Mathaji Nagar, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Chief Construction Engineer ( R & B) Defence Research & Development Organisation, Akbar Road, Secunderabad-3 .....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 a writ or direction, order or Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of dismissal of the petitioner , said to have been passed by the Respondent, as intimated to the petitioner vide letters No. 200055/Admin, dated. 20/05/1998 and 3/07/1998 and quash the same by declaring as arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and regularise his leave from 16/12/1996 to 12/05/1998 and also set aside the judgment dated. 2/11/1999 in OA.No.1032/1998 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, with all other consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.S.REKHA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.2213 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: (per C.V. RAMULU,J) This Writ Petition is directed against an Order made in O.A.No.1032 of 1998, dated 2-11-1999 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. It appears, petitioner was appointed as a Helper on regular basis in the respondent-organization and joined service with eﬀect from 22-6-1990. Subsequently, he was also promoted as Tradesman ‘E’ with eﬀect from 1-6- 1996. While that being so, petitioner seems to have absented for duty from 16-12-1996 to 12-5-1998 and when he reported for duty with a medical ﬁtness certiﬁcate, he was not allowed to join duty and in fact, it was informed to him that on 30-11- 1997 itself he was dismissed from service on the basis of disciplinary proceedings conducted ex parte. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner, though ﬁled the said O.A., it was his prayer to call for the records relating to the dismissal order said to have been passed by the respondent on 27-10-1997 etc., but he did not challenge the Order dated 27-10-1997 nor he has produced such an order before the Tribunal and the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner was also not present. The whole case of the petitioner was that he was mentally not sound. But the Tribunal felt that in spite of publishing as to conducting of the enquiry in the local newspapers, there was no response from any of the family members of the petitioner. Therefore, they were forced to conduct an ex parte enquiry. Be that as it may, since the very dismissal order dated 27-10-1997 which was given eﬀect from 30-11-2007 was not challenged, the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner should have challenged the dismissal order on various grounds and asked for the relief. He did not do so. Therefore, the O.A. was rightly dismissed. Even at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to place before the Court, the dismissal order said to have been passed by the respondents on 27-10-1997. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate representation before the competent authority seeking modiﬁcation of the dismissal order passed by it. On ﬁling such a representation, the disciplinary authority may consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks thereafter and communicate its decision to the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs _______________________ (Ghulam Mohammed,J) 24th July, 2008 _____________ (C.V.Ramulu,J) prk