HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.3478 OF 2007 Dt.2.2.2010 Between: K.Gangadhar ..Petitioner And The Post Master, Jagtial Head Post Office, Jagtial, Karimnagar District and others ..Respoondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.3478 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.624 of 2004, dated 6.11.2006, dismissing the O.A., confirming the order of removal passed by the 1st respondent vide proceeding No.H/Disc/Rule-1- /2001-2002, dated 11.1.2002, which was confirmed by the appellate authority in Memo No.B2/KG/GDS/SV/JGL, dated 8.5.2003. The petitioner while working as Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor at Jagtial Head Post Office applied for leave from 5.6.1996 to 10.9.1996 and the same was extended up to 10.10.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner did not apply for any extension of leave and remained absent till 11.3.1997. Accordingly, a charge memo No.B1/Disc/Rule-8/1997, dated 11.3.1997 was sent under registered letter No.2520 dated 18.3.1997. The said registered letter was returned undelivered with an endorsement that the addressee left to Dubai. Three charges were framed against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from 20.1.1996 to 11.3.1997 i.e., the date of charge memo. After issuing show cause notice, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner never appeared before the enquiry officer held on 14.9.1998, 24.9.1998, 26.10.1998, 23.11.1998 and 14.12.1998 and the enquiry was completed on 14.12.1998. All the letters/ notices sent to the petitioner were returned with an endorsement that the addressee left to Dubai and hence returned to the sender. The enquiry officer examined four witnesses and after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority communicated the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner through registered letter No.3256, which was received by the petitioner on 23.11.2001. The petitioner submitted a representation on 26.11.2001 along with medical certificate issued by Dr.C.S.Sharma of a private hospital in Bombay stating that he was under treatment of Dr.C.S.Sharma for the period from 3.10.1996 to 27.1.2001 i.e., for a period of four years four months. Even after the said discharge from the hospital on 27.1.2001, he was not informed anything about his absence for duty. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer passed the order of removal, dated 11.1.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide proceedings dated 8.5.2003. Against the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.624 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal considered the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the so-called explanation that he met with an accident, he recovered after four years, he was in coma, he was suffering from sever depression and psychiatric problem and opined that the said explanation and the certificate produced by the petitioner does not give any impression that he has suffered from physical injury. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of removal. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal warranting interference with the said order of the Tribunal apart form the improbability in the case pleaded by the petitioner. The Tribunal disbelieved the medical certificate itself on account of over-writings and there cannot be any treatment of more than four years for the so-called accident. The petitioner has not filed any record about the cause of action and the so-called treatment about the coma. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not require any interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 2.2.1010 kpr