IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7327 of 2001 Between: Sri P. Mohan Rao S/o P. Gunna Suryanarayana (late) National Savings Organisation, D.No.50-89-12, Shanthipuram, Visakhaptnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Govternment, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2 The National Savings Commissioner, Govt. of India, 12 Seminary Hills, Nagpur. 3 The Regional Director, Govt. of India, National Savings, C-Block, IInd Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad 4 The Deputy Regional Director National Savings, Govt. of India Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in Memo No.33082/vig/2(8) 86, dt: 5-12-1988 as void and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to reinstate petitioner into service as Driver-cum-Operator with all backwages and other service benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.M.RATNA REDDY (ADDL.S.C FOR C.G) The Court made the following : ORDER (PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED): This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the National Savings Commissioner, Govt. of India, Nagpur-2nd respondent vide Memo.No.33082/vig/2(8)86, dated 05.12.1988, as void and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Driver-cum-Operator with all backwages and other service benefits. 2. Background facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition, in brief, are: The petitioner herein was charge-sheeted for his unauthorized absence. The disciplinary authority after conducing the enquiry passed an order of removal from service against the petitioner on 05.12.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.895 of 1996 with a prayer to set aside the order of removal dated 05.12.1988 and also the proceedings dated 23.04.1993 issued by the revisional authority as arbitrary and illegal, mainly on the ground that he was not supplied with copy of the enquiry report and passing of order of removal from service by the disciplinary authority without furnishing copy of the enquiry report to him is arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal, on considering the contentions of the parties, set aside the order of removal from service imposed against the petitioner herein and remitted the matter back to the respondent authorities for fresh disposal after furnishing the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authorities passed an order of removal from service, which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Indisputably, the petitioner has filed this writ petition without exhausting the remedy before the service Tribunal. Administrative Tribunal being a substitute to the High Court has necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters. The petitioner has to avail the efficacious remedy available before the Tribunal by challenging the validity and legality of the subsequent order passed by the respondent authorities. Without availing the said remedy, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court and this Court admitted the writ petition. Since the petitioner has not availed the efficacious remedy available to him before the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within two weeks by filing O.A. On such O.A. being filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal shall entertain the same without raising objection as to the period of limitation and dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months thereafter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED __________________________ JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:17th April, 2009. Tnb/cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}