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 : 13932 of 1999 Between: Dr.Azmath Shah Khan S/o Marhaath Shah Khan R/o H.No.8-1-21/104, Suryanagar, Tolichouki, Hyderabad-500008. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department Secretary Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Director Animal Husbandry Department Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The A.P., Administrative Tribunal, Rep by its Registrar Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records leading up to and including the order dated 22.1.99 in O.A.No.869 of 199 and by quashing the same and also by quashing the G.O.Ms.No.881, Food and Agriculture (AH.I) Department dated 7.12.1988 & Memo No. 70401/AH.I/89-2 dated 13.3.90 of the first respondent direct the respondents to reinstate me into service with all back salary, continuity of service and all other consequential and attend benefits for which I would become eligible and pass such other order or orders as ome may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.13932 of 1999 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 22-01-1999 passed in O.A.No.869 of 1991 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are as follows: a) The petitioner was working as Assistant Director in Animal Husbandry at Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. He was served a charge memo No.3407/O.S.I./86, dated 24-06-1986, calling for his explanation for his unauthorized absence from duty from 24-06-1985. He gave an explanation on 08-11-1986 and requested for giving posting order. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.71953/BV.I/B.15/82, dated 28-02-1987, posting him as Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry at Veternary Hospital, Asifabad. The petitioner took charge and communicated the fact to his superiors. The 1st respondent issued show-cause-notice in Memo No.23583/AH.I/87-4, dated 24-11-1987, directing him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for his unauthorized absence. He gave explanation dated 17-12-1987. The 1st respondent, without considering the said explanation, passed order in G.O.Ms.No.881, dated 17-12-1988 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal on 01-12-1989 which was also rejected by the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 13-03-1990. b) The main allegation against the petitioner is his unauthorized absence from service. Initially, he applied for leave on 30-08-1982 vide leave application dated 30-09-1982. He went on extending leave in piecemeal. He was granted Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) from 26- 12-1984 to 23-06-1985 on private affairs. His request for voluntary retirement was rejected as he did not complete 20 years of required qualifying service. His absence was not regularized. He was directed to attend duty and get the absence regularized. But the petitioner sent another undated leave application, which was received by his superiors on 28-11-1984, requesting extension of leave from 29-06-1984 to 25-12-1984 and he was granted leave up to 11-12-1984 and was directed to join duty after expiry of leave. Instead of rejoining duty, the petitioner further requested for extension of EOL from 26-12-1984 to 30-06-1985. He was informed vide Memo dated 14-06-1985 that his request for extension of leave from 26-12-1984 is rejected and he was directed to join duty immediately. But again he requested vide letter dated 02-02-1985 for sanction of leave from 26-12-1984 to 23- 06-1985 on private affairs stating that his application for voluntary retirement was pending. He was granted EOL from 26-12-1984 to 23- 06-1985 vide proceedings dated 26-08-1985, informing him that his application for voluntary retirement was rejected and asking him to report for duty immediately. The petitioner again requested for extension of EOL from 24-06-1985 to 20-12-1985 vide his letter dated 29-07-1985 and a Memo No.71953/B2/82, dated 27-11-1985, was issued finally directing the petitioner to attend duty forthwith informing that his request for extension of leave was rejected. It was also informed that his failure to attend duty would be considered as defiance of the orders of the superior authority and action will be initiated against him under A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1963. Still, he did not join duty and submitted a letter dated 12-12-1985 requesting for further extension of EOL from 21-12-1985 to 18-06-1986. c) Considering the above history, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.400, dated 28-04-1986, as per A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1963. The enquiry officer issued charge memo and after examination of explanation of the petitioner, submitted his report. The Government, after considering the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1963, and after examining further explanation of the petitioner, removed him from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.869 of 1991 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal dismissed the said application holding that the petitioner had no intention to rejoin duty in spite of warnings and memos and therefore, the respondents rightly passed the proceedings against the petitioner after conducting enquiry removing the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer, who framed charges against him, did not give specific findings on the said charges and in spite of the same, he has recommended for punishment. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: Charge No.1 : That Dr.Azmat Shah Khan, Assistant Director (AH), is trying to avoid the Government duty and violated Rule 3 (1) of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules 1964. Explanation of Charged Officer:- The Officer has stated that due to family affairs, he was forced to apply leave with effect from 28.9.1982 and extended from time to time and that he had never neglected superior officers and was not trying to avoid rules laid down for the employees. He has stated that he is very much to join duty but due to his present circumstances did not permit him to do so and requested to drop the charges. Charge No.2: That he had dis-obeyed the orders of Director of Animal Husbandry issued in Memo. Roc.No.71953/B2/82, dated 15.11.1984, 11.2.1984, 14.6.1985 and 21.11.1985 and failed to Report for Duty. Explanation of Charged Officer:- He has stated that he has not dis-obeyed. He has stated that due to family circumstances he could not resume for duty after expiry of leave sanctioned and that he has extended leave from time to time. He has stated that this does not amount to disobedience of the orders of superiors. He has stated time and again that he is in touch with Department and extending the leave from time to time and requested to drop the charges. Charge No.3: He had given his leave address as House No.3-5-782/82/5, King Koti, Hyderabad 500 001 But D.A.H. Memo No.71953/B2/82, sent to him by Registered post was returned by postal authorities stating that “No such person in this number House”. Explanation: - In explanation, the Charged officer has stated that due to lack of sufficient accommodation and water problem, he has changed his house and was residing in House No.125/3, RT. Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad and changing of address was also informed to the Director of Animal Husbandry. In the explanation, lastly he has stated that charged leveled against him may be dropped and he has assured that he will not hesitate to resume duty to serve the Department.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the report of the enquiry officer reveals that the findings recorded by him are not in proper proforma and he did not record specific finding on any charge, but ultimately, recorded that the petitioner is not at all interested in joining service. On the basis of the recommendation of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from service. The appeal filed against the report of the enquiry officer, was rejected. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there might be some technical deficiency in the report of the enquiry officer as he did not give specific finding with regard to each charge, but the facts are undisputed. The record clearly reveals that the petitioner never intended to join duty. Whenever he was granted leave and was asked to join, he went on submitting another application for extension of leave, and then failed to join duty as directed. Thus, the petitioner went on refusing to join duty, in disobedience to the orders of the superior officers. The report of the enquiry officer also reveals that the petitioner has not completed the minimum period of service of 20 years, so as to become eligible for getting voluntary retirement. The petitioner has just worked in the department for 11 days during the period from 11-04-1977 to 17-10- 1987 as referred to in the show cause notice issued to him vide memo No.23583/AH.I/87-4, dated 24-11-1987. The fact that he has worked just for 11 days during the period from 11-04-1977 to 17-10-1987, is also not disputed by the petitioner. 6. As rightly observed by the Tribunal below, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duties for several years even though his leave applications have not been sanctioned. He was given warnings and sufficient time to rejoin duty. His request for voluntary retirement was also rejected for want of minimum qualifying service. Still, he did not join duty in spite of warnings and memos, and therefore, the official respondents were constrained to take serious action in accordance with Rules. 7. Considering the above circumstances, we are of the view that though there may be miner technical omissions in the orders passed by the official respondents, but for that reason alone, the writ petition cannot be allowed, the same is liable to be dismissed. Persons like the petitioner, who continuously went on disobeying the orders of superiors and fails to attend duty for years, cannot be granted any relief on account of minor technical error. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH _____________________________ 15th June 2009 JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY Kvr