THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.9923 of 2010 ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 05.03.2010 passed in O.A.No.5228 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and also the proceedings, dated 26.05.2006, issued by the third respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Supervisor of Agricultural Market Committee, was suspended from service on the ground of misappropriation of funds and in this connection, a charge memo was served on him on 17.11.2000. After enquiry, a show cause notice, dated 20.01.2003, proposing dismissal from service, was issued to him. Challenging the same, he filed O.A.No.745 of 2003 before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the same setting aside the said show cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the Agricultural Market Committee filed W.P.No.1342 of 2004 wherein this Court granted interim suspension. Subsequently, a supplementary charge memo dated 27.02.2004, was issued to the petitioner. Questioning the same, he filed O.A.No.2988 of 2004, which was later withdrawn by him. While so, the suspension orders were revoked and subsequently, another charge memo dated 01.09.2004 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner states that though he made a representation to the respondents for supply of certain documents, they have not considered the same, as such, he failed to submit his explanation within 15 days and finally, a show cause notice dated 26.05.2006, was issued to him proposing his termination. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5228 of 2006 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same directing the petitioner to file his explanation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order raising all the pleas both factually and legally before the disciplinary authority, and on receipt of such explanation, the disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate orders, assigning reasons for the objections raised by the applicant, and communicate the same to the applicant and the Tribunal granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order before appropriate forum according to rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not submitted his explanation to the charge memo dated 01.09.2004, as certain crucial documents were not supplied to him. He contended that the respondents conducted ex parte enquiry and issued final show cause notice to the petitioner. He also contended that the Tribunal without ordering supply of certain documents to the petitioner directed him to submit explanation. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that an express memo dated 04.09.2004, was sent to the petitioner informing that the xerox copies of the required documents were already supplied to him, but he neither submitted his explanation nor participated in the enquiry and that the Tribunal after considering all these aspects, disposed of the O.A., by the order impugned, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Admittedly, though the petitioner submitted several representations for supply of certain documents, the respondents neither responded to the same nor supplied the documents sought by him, but conducted ex parte enquiry and issued show cause notice dated 26.05.2006 proposing his termination. He stated that certain documents are required for submitting his explanation and for contesting the matter on merits since the alleged irregularity is with regard to misappropriation of funds. 7. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prove his case since an order of termination was passed against him after conducing ex parte enquiry. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal and direct the respondents to supply the documents to the petitioner as sought by him, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the matter afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties, within a period of two weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:05.07.2011 sj