HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.18882 OF 2003 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 09-08-2002 passed in O.A. No.3141 of 2001 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed O.A. No.3141 of 2001 before the Tribunal challenging G.O.Ms.No.22, Housing (HB.1) Department dated 17-04-2001, whereby he was dismissed from service on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 25-03-1991 till the date of dismissal and his absence from 25-03-1991 till the date of dismissal was treated as not on duty. The Tribunal having observed that the fact remains that the petitioner absented himself from duty from 25-03-1991 to 05-01-1996, that just because in the charges it is not indicated that he was unauthorisedly absent, it cannot be said that prejudice is caused to him, that at every stage he was aware of the fact that he was being chargesheeted for his unauthorized absence and, therefore, he was not put to any sort of prejudice at any point of time; dismissed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period he was under suspension. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services- I. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner applied for leave on medical grounds from 25-03-1991 to 30-06-1991 and as he did not regain his health, extended the leave upto 31-12-1991, and further extended the leave from time to time to solve his domestic chores and sent leave letters under certificate of posting. It is further contended that when the petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 18-04-1996; he filed an appeal against the said orders before the 1st respondent and the same was rejected; and against the same, he filed O.A. No.3875 of 1998 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. setting aside the orders of dismissal, giving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate steps as per rules. It is further contended that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and though he filed more than three O.A.s and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 27-05-2000 directing his reinstatement, he was not reinstated. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that initially petitioner applied for leave on medical grounds, but, thereafter he did not send any leave applications to the office for extension of leave and that he was absent from duty unauthorizedly and that he did not furnish his leave address to the office and that the notice sent by the Department has been returned with an endorsement that addressee left India and hence, he was dismissed from his service for unauthorized absence from duty. He further contended that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.3875 of 1998, the 2nd respondent appointed an inquiry officer and, based on the report submitted by the inquiry officer, he was dismissed from service and, in the meanwhile, upon the request made by the petitioner, Government has issued G.O.Ms.55 for reinstatement of the petitioner into service and, pending enquiry proceedings, petitioner was reinstated into service and after the enquiry was completed as the charges framed against him were proved, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 17- 04-2001 dismissing him from service,, while cancelling G.O.Ms.No.55. 6. Upon perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the inquiry report, it is clear that the petitioner was absent from his duties without any leave being sanctioned and that he did not even furnish the correct address in his absence. During the inquiry also it was found that the petitioner was not submitted his leave address willfully, and failed to submit explanation regarding his leave beyond 10-08-1991 and also failed to prove that he is residing in India as the show cause notice sent to his given address was returned with an endorsement “addressee out of India.” Therefore, the Tribunal justified in its finding that the petitioner was absent himself from duty from 25-03-1991 to 05- 01-1996. 7. The contention of the petitioner before this Court that the inquiry was not conducted properly cannot be sustained for the reason that the record itself speaks that he was unauthorizedly absent from 25-03-1991 to 05-01-1996 without furnishing any leave address and also the endorsement of postal authorities to the effect that the addressee is out of India, which amounts to negligence on his part and it caused much inconvenience to the Department to make any correspondence with the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J September 29, 2010. __________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J KTL