IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25918 of 2008 Between: V. Dasaradharami Reddy S/o. V. Balarama REddy EMD/Electrical, SDSC, SHAR, Sriharikota, Pulicat Nagar, Sriharikota, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India rep. by its Chairman, Indian Space Research Organization, Anthariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560094. 2 The Director of Disciplinary Authority, SHAR Centre, Sriharikota - 524124. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling records from the offices of 1st and 2nd respondents, thereafter to set aside the order passed in O.A.No.1278/2004 dated 10.12.2004 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Adminstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by allowing the said O.A.No.1278/2004, with all consequential benefits to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 25918 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 10-12-2004 passed in O.A.No.1278 of 2004 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 1278 of 2001 challenging the order dated 13-12-2003 whereby the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was initiated for his unauthorized absence and later the appellate Authority has modified the punishment of compulsory retirement to the penalty of reduction to the post of Tradesman ‘F’ in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000/- and treating the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 5-3-2001 to 18-11-2001 as dies non. 3. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the petitioner had been kidnapped by anti social elements and kept in captivity for the entire period of his absence, as such his absence was not willful or intentional. However, the petitioner was allowed to make a representation against the charge memo dated 14-9-2001 and after full fledged enquiry was held and the petitioner was allowed to inspect the records and he was asked to produce the documents in defence, but he did not produce anything, nor did he bring any evidence in defence for examination. The petitioner had also not nominated any Defence Assistant despite opportunity. He did not say anything in defence and there was no witness examined on his behalf. The Tribunal, after considering the fact that despite several opportunities the petitioner had not produced any evidence in defence and no details were furnished by the petitioner regarding the kidnappers and came to the conclusion that the story narrated by the petitioner with regard to the kidnap is only an after thought and that no prima facie case has been made out and at the admission stage the impugned O.A. was dismissed. 4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not consider the matter in right perspective and the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. We have perused the order impugned in this writ petition. The Tribunal examined the matter in detail and disbelieved the story put up by the petitioner with regard to kidnap which lead to an inference that the story narrated by the petitioner is not supported by any oral and documentary evidence and prima facie declined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was kept in captivity for a long period from 5-3- 2001 to 18-11-2001 and in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence the Tribunal did not believe the version of the petitioner that he was kidnapped for such an abnormal period. 6. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is right in coming to the just conclusion that kidnap story is only for the purpose of filling the lacune and to cover up the laxity committed by the petitioner. 7. We find that there are no merits in this writ petition warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 27th November, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 25918 OF 2008 27th November, 2008.