KARUMULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has joined the State Excise department in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad on 22-5-1943. In his affidavit, he stated that his date of birth is 1st Khurdad 1324 fasli, which is equivalent to 6-4-1915. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in the Service Book this date of birth has been tampered with and altered as Khurdad 1329 Fasli, which is equivalent to 5-4-1920. The petitioner was removed from service in 1958 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. He then filed the suit OS.No.81/65 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civii Court, Hyderabad challenging the said order and the said suit was decreed and the order of dismissal was declared as null and void. The appeal AS.No 48/68 preferred by the Government was dismissed on 9-9-1970 and petitioner was reinstated into service in the last week of 1971. While so, one Mr. P. H. Mawle filed a petition on 10-2-1972 before the Board of Revenue bringing to the notice of of the Board that the petioner was convicted by judgment dated 2-1-1970 in Criminal Appeal No. 107/69 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for breach of trust punishable under section 406 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise obtained a certified copy of the judgment of the High Court and forwarded the same to the Board by his letter dated 19-5-1972 and also intimated by subsequent letter dated 23 9-1972 that the petitionef had paid the fine of Rs. 250/-. On receipt of the said judgment, the Board passed the impugned order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner filed a representation before the Administrative Services Tribunal, but on objection being raised that it was not maintainable, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is this order that is now challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner had filed another suit OS.No.126/72 on the file of the 5th Additional Judge, City was contested by the Government, but the soit was decreed and the appeal CCCA. No. 77/75 preferred to the High Court on 31-1-1978.

(3.) Before adverting to the contentions raised by Sri Upendralal Waghray, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to few more facts which have a bearing on the contentions raised in this writ petition. The dismissal order dated 20-12-1972 was directed to be communicated to the petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad with a request to the Deputy Commissioner to return the duplicate served copy of the order with dated signature of the petitioner immediately. This order was despatched on 21-12-1975. The Deputy Commissioner, Excise by his letter dated 25-12-1972 forwarded the order of dismissal in duplicate to the Excise Superiontendent, Mahaboobnagar district and requested him to serve the said order on the petitioner and relieve him immediately by placing the Range in additional charge of the Sub-Inspector of the adjacent range. But, this was signed on 27-12-1972. This order was received by the Excise Superintendent, Mababoobnagar' on 28-12-1972 while he was at the Nagarkurnool Gamp and he issued instructions to the Sub-Inspector of Nagarkurnool to serve the order on the petitioner and to hold additional charge of the post of Sub-Inspector, Gopalpet Range. In appears that the order of dismissal could not be served on the petitioner. The Excise Suprintendent, in his letter dated 15-2-1973 stated that the Sub-Inspector, Nagarkuinool had been to Gopalpet on 29-12-1972 and could not serve the order, as the petitioner was not present at the range, and that the SubInspector went to Hyderabad to serve the order on the petitioner. But, there also, the petitioner was not available.