THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.25407 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent – State of A.P., represented by the Secretary to Government, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture Department, in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, by its order dated 11.9.2003 in Memo No.89446/81/2003-3, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as U.D. Steno in the 1st respondent office. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he was appointed as U.D. steno in the office of the 1st respondent – Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of A.P., Hyderabad on 6.11.1979 and while so, when he fell sick on 2.9.1997, he applied for leave for the period from 2.9.1997 to 30.11.1997 and informed about the same to the 1st respondent by letter dated 2.9.1997 enclosing the medical certificate, but there was no response and by letter dated 18.11.1997, the 1st respondent issued proceedings no.AAP/ESTTG/1193/97 dated 18.11.1997, terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect and paid three months emoluments in lieu of notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 2nd respondent and as the same was kept pending without disposal, he preferred writ petition before this court in W.P.No.26305/2001 and by order dated 27.12.2001, this court disposed of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of the order. Instead of disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority sent crossed cheque for an amount of Rs.11,107/- towards payment of three months emoluments in lieu of notice vide office note No.SAAP/E3/700/2002 dated 26.4.2003. Again aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.14245/2003 and by order dated 29.8.2003, this court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, on merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a the order. In response to the directions of this court, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.9.2003 stating that the appeal of the petitioner cannot be considered on the ground that post has been abolished vide G.O.Ms.No.563 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 2.5.2002. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting enquiry by complying with the principles of natural justice, he cannot be terminated on the grounds of unauthorized absence and just because the post is abolished, the respondents have to show him an alternative employment. With these averments, he sought to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and justified the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner and paying the emoluments in lieu of notice and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From the material on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as U.D. Stenographer on 6.11.1979. Alleging that the petitioner is an habitual absconder and that indulged in misappropriation of office money, proceedings No.SAAP/Estt-3/1192/97 dated 18.11.1997, was issued by the 2nd respondent and as per service rules of SAAP framed vide Rule 24(2) of G.O.Ms.EG & YS (S) Department dated 4.5.1993, his services were terminated with immediate effect, by paying three months emoluments in lieu of notice. As noted above, in view of the directions of this court dated 29.8.2003 in W.P.No.14245/2003, to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits, the present impugned order came to be passed. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 11.9.2003, at paragraph nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “5. Subsequently, Government in the reference 5th cited have issued a hearing notice to the individual directing him to appear before the Appellate Authority (i.e., Secretary, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture Department) on 28.06.2002 at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly the appellant appeared before the Appellate Authority on 28.6.2002 and a statement form him has been taken on 29.6.2002. 6. The Government heard the appellant’s contentions and after perusal of the case history of the appellant found that he is a habitual absentee and his services were terminated by the disciplinary authority concerned earlier, in the year 1992 & 1994 and got reinstated then and three, on sympathetic grounds. It is also noticed that the said post of UD Steno stands abolished vide G.O.Ms.No.563, Finance (SMPC) Department dated 2.5.2002. 7. The Government therefore see no reason to reverse the proceedings of the then Vice chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. 8. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh requested to pay three months salary to the appellant in lieu of three months advance notice if the same was not effect.” 7. From a reading of the above proceedings it is clear that as per the directions of this court, the petitioner was given notice and his statement was taken and based on the material on record, it was found that he is habitual absentee. The appellate authority, which is a quasi judicial authority, cannot be expected to comply strict rules of evidence and it has to be examined that before reaching the conclusion, whether principles of natural justice has been complied with and whether there is some evidence to reach such conclusion. The above proceedings show that the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority and gave his statement. Therefore, principles of natural justice as been complied with before finding that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. 8. Apart from the above, it is also to be noticed that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.563, Finance (SMPC) Department dated 2.5.2002 abolishing the post of U.D. steno. In such type of contingency, Rule framed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under sub-section (i) of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Sports Authorities Act, 1988 requires to be seen. Rule 24 of the said rules deals with Termination of Services and sub rule 2 of Rule 24 is as under: 24. Termination of service: (1) . . . (2) The service of a permanent employee may be terminated by the appointing authority by giving a notice of three months or on payment of emoluments for such period as the notice falls short of three months or without notice on a payment of three months emoluments if the post to which he/she is appointed is abolished.” 9. The above provisions clearly stipulates that the services of a permanent employee can be terminated by the appointing authority if the post to which he/she is appointed is abolished, by giving three months notice or on payment of emoluments for the said period in lieu of notice. 10. In the present case, as per G.O.Ms.No563, the post of U.D. Stenographer is abolished. Therefore, in compliance of sub-rule 2 of Rule 24, the appointing authority was requested to pay three moths emoluments in lieu of three months advance notice and accordingly the said emoluments were sent to the petitioner. 11. Therefore, from the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view, that the respondents have complied with the directions of this court in disposal of the appeal by complying with the principles of natural justice and however, as the said post was abolished by the Government, issued cheque for thee months emoluments and hence the impugned order cannot be found fault with and the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 08--02—2011