IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27163 of 1999 Between: Smt.Afsarunnisa D/o.M.A.Lateef R/o.H.No.17-2-09/31, Kurmaguda, Saidabad,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Accounts, Muncipal Corporation of 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 to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the A.P.A.T.in O.A.No.2451 of 1999 dt.10.12.99 and the orders passed in Memo No.416/OP/OP3/MCH/99-183, dt.7.4.99 and the termination passed in Pro.No.416/OP/OP3/95/98 dt.3.2.95 as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and against Articles 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the pettioner into service as Junior Auditor by treating the entire period from 26.12.92 to till the date of reinstatement as duty with full pay Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GANTA RAMA RAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 27163 OF 1999 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the order dated 10-12- 1999 passed in O.A.No. 2451 of 1999 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the orders passed in Memo NO. 416/OP3/MCH/99-/183, dated 7-4-1999 and the termination passed in proceedings NO. 416/OP/OP3/95/98, dated 3-2-1995 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner-Smt. Afsarunnisa was appointed as Junior Auditor in respondent Corporation on 12-7-1990 as per G.O.Ms. No. 699 M.A., dated 28-8-1978. She joined duty on 16-7-1990. Her probation was also declared on 15-7-1992 in the cadre of Junior Auditor. On account of her ill health and personal problems she applied for casual leave for 3 days from 28-2-1992. Again, she applied for leave from 2-1-1993. On account of her ill health and some personal problems she extended her leave from time to time. At the time of joining duty she gave her home address as Kum. Afsarunnisa D/o late M.A. Lateef, H.No. 17-2/309/31, Kurmaguda, Hyderabad. It is her further case that on account of serious illness and as her family members even lost the hope of survival, she was taken to Bombay for treatment. After her recovery from her ill health, she got married on 26-1-1995. It is her case that her services were terminated without giving any show cause notice. The respondent published a notice of her termination from the service in the daily newspaper ‘ Siasat’. She approached the respondent office in the month of March and explained the reasons for not attending to duty. She gave representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 22-3-1996 to consider her case on compassionate grounds. She gave further representations on 20-7-1998 and 24-2- 1999, but they rejected her representation by order dated 7-4-1999 without considering her case. It is also her case that as her husband started harassing her, she initiated criminal proceedings against him. Presently she had no means of livelihood. The respondents passed rejection order on 7-4-1999. Her services were terminated on 3-2-1995 by the 1st respondent. She filed her representation on 24-2- 1999. The 1st respondent rejected her appeal on the ground of delay. Challenging the rejection order, dated 24-2-1999 she filed O.A. However, she did not seek to quash her termination orders dated 3-2-1995 issued by the 1st respondent. 3. Per contra, 1st respondent filed counter contending inter alia and admitting the appointment as well as probation of the petitioner. She applied for casual leave for 4 days and later absented from discharging her duties. On 20-3-1993 she sent an application along with medical certificate requesting for 40 weeks leave on medical grounds enclosing the medical certificate issued by Director, Hyderabad Physiotherapy Centre, countersigned by the Deputy Civil Surgeon/R.M.O. Osmania General Hospital, that she was suffering from right sided Hemaplagia and Asphaegia which means paralysis and loss of speech. She was directed to be present herself before the Chief Medical Officer of Health, respondent Corporation dated 7-4-1993. Subsequently, the Corporation has framed charges for her unauthorized absence. She neither submitted her explanation nor reported for duty. Accordingly, her services as Junior Auditor were terminated w.e.f. 28-12-1993 vide Proceeding No. 416/OP/OP3/95, dated 1-2-1995. 4. On considering the material brought on record, the Tribunal disbelieved the version of the petitioner of her illness for such an abnormal period and dismissed the O.A. as devoid of merits. The said order is under challenged in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that she was not given adequate opportunity and a major punishment was imposed by the authority without following the procedure as enshrined in C.C.A. Rules. He further contended that the Tribunal did not consider the fact that the petitioner fell ill and unable to discharge the duties due to his illness at the relevant period. 6. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to be present before the Medical Board by the 1st respondent. She did not come forward to substantiate her claim of illness before the Medical Board. That a part the petitioner left the organization without giving her whereabouts for about 2 ½ years, that compelled the organization to publish notice in daily newspaper ‘ Siasat’. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fell ill at the relevant period has no legs to stand, because as per her own version, during the absent period she got married and begot two children. It is quite impossible that a person suffering from paralysis would marry and begot two children in the illness. The 1st respondent has given ample opportunities by publishing the notice in the newspaper and also requested the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board. However, the petitioner did not avail the opportunities afforded by the 1st respondent and took a false stand of illness to fill up the lacune and the laxity on her part. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept this contention. On the other hand, the Tribunal also found that the petitioner without challenging the termination order cannot be permitted to challenge the Memo dated 7-4-1999. Despite giving several opportunities to her, she did not give explanation to the charge memo and after much water has been flown and now after lapse of several years, she cannot agitate that she was suffering with paralysis and due to that she did not discharge her duties. 7. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 5th December, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 27163 OF 1999 5th December, 2008.