IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No. 6561 of 2009 Between: The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And P. Harinatha Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER: (per Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) passed in O.A. No. 5649 of 2005, dated 02-06-2008 as being erroneous and contrary to law and to set aside the same. The 1st respondent herein was dismissed from service as Forest Range Officer by order of the 1st petitioner herein dated 01-05-1997 on the ground that he secured job under Scheduled Tribe quota by producing false community certificate. Questioning the said order, the 1st respondent herein filed O.A. No. 4037 of 1997. The Tribunal by its order dated 23-10-1997 passed in the said O.A. remitted the matter back to the department for further enquiry, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent herein was reinstated into service vide proceedings of the 1st petitioner herein, dated 03-12-1997. The 1st respondent joined duty on 29-08-1999 and thereafter his services for the period from 06-05-1997 to 12-12- 1997 were ordered to be regularized under F.R.54 after finalization of disciplinary case against him, while treating his later period of service from 13-12-1997 to 29-08-1999 as “on leave”, as per the orders passed by the 1st petitioner in Ref.No.24730/01/K2, dated 21-02-2004. Challenging the said orders, the 1st respondent herein filed O.A. No.5649 of 2005. The Tribunal by its common order made in O.A. Nos.3855 and 5649 of 2005 dated 02-06-2008, while allowing O.A. No.5649 of 2005 and setting aside the order of the 1st petitioner herein, dated 21-02-2004, directed the 1st petitioner herein to pass orders under A.P. Fundamental Rule 54-A (F.R.54- A) in respect of the period of service in between the date of dismissal and the date of the orders in O.A. No.4037 of 1997, and further directed to regularize the later period of service from 23- 10-1997 to 29-08-1999 as “on duty”. Assailing the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.5649 of 2005 to the extent it directed regularization of the service of the 1st respondent herein by treating the period from 23-10-1997 to 29-08-1999 as “on duty”, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in O.A. No.4037 of 1997 on 23-10-1997, the 1st respondent was reinstated into service and allotted to Hyderabad Circle for further posting as per the proceedings of the 1st petitioner herein dated 03-12-1997. The 1st respondent having received the said proceedings on 12-12- 1997, failed to report to duty, and instead submitted a representation on 01-05-1998 after lapse of four months requesting to post him at Miryalguda range of Nalgonda Division, which request was not recommended, and he was allotted to Nizamabad Circle by proceedings dated 22-08-1998. However, the 1st respondent did not join duty, and later he was re-allotted to Hyderabad Circle. Thereafter, his request for posting to Devarakonda Range was not considered. However, his subsequent request to post him either at Ammangal Range of Mahabubnagar Division or Vikarabad Range of Hyderabad Division, was considered and he was posted in Vikarabad Range by the proceedings dated 24-08-1999 and he reported to duty on 29-08-1999. Since the 1st respondent herein deliberately avoided joining duty even after issuing posting orders, the Tribunal could not have ordered regularization of his absence for the period from 23-10-1997 to 29-08-1999 as “on duty”. However, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein disputed the statement made by the Government Pleader for the petitioners that posting orders were issued to the 1st respondent herein, but he failed to join, and submitted that the petitioners did not issue any posting orders to the 1st respondent immediately after the Tribunal passed orders in O.A. No.4037 of 1997 and he did not refuse to join duty in the respective places of posting. The Government Pleader, except stating that in spite of issuing posting orders, the 1st respondent did not join duty, and instead sought change of place of posting, and as such, the period from 23-10-1997 to 29-08-1999, could not have been ordered to be regularized by the Tribunal as “on duty”, did not place any material whatsoever to show that the 1st respondent was served with the posting orders, and that he refused to receive such orders. In the absence of any material placed by the petitioners to show that the 1st respondent was served with posting orders and he refused to join, the orders passed by the Tribunal, directing the petitioners to regularize the aforementioned period as “on duty” cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-06-2010 Svv