IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1228 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/07/2007 in WP NO : 12791 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority (I.T.D.A.,) Rampachodavaram East Godavari District ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Reddy Sanyasayya, S/o.Chinnayya S.T.(Konda Reddy), Godugurai, Devaramadugu Panchayat, Y.Ramavaram Mandalam, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.GOPALAKRISHNAMACHARYULU The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The order dated 18-7-2007 passed in W.P.No.12791 of 2000 has been challenged in this appeal by the appellants- employer. The respondent remained absent without any sanctioned leave and, therefore, a show-cause notice was given to him calling upon him to show-cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The said show-cause notice was not replied to and in the circumstances, without holding any enquiry, services of the original petitioner- respondent was terminated. The order of termination was challenged in the aforestated petition. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that a regular enquiry was required to be held and, therefore, the order of removal has been quashed and set aside. No consequential beneﬁts have been awarded, in other words, no back wages are to be paid to the respondent. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has also agreed to this position. Looking to the fact that a regular enquiry was, in fact, required to be held before passing of the order of removal, in our opinion, the order of removal without holding any regular enquiry was bad in law and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the same. We do not see any substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to say that it will be open to the appellant- employer to initiate regular enquiry in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order thereafter. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th October, 2008. GRR