V RAJU Vs. COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 03. 10. 2008 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O. A. No. 549 of 2007, whereunder the relief sought for by the petitioner for reinstatement into service was negatived.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner was appointed by the first respondent to the post of Mazdoor in february, 1988 in pursuance of sponsoring of his name by the Employment Exchange. While so, the first respondent issued a charge Sheet to him in the year 1992 alleging that he has produced a false school transfer certificate to secure employment. Based on that allegation, the first respondent passed an order dated 29. 8. 1994 removing him from, service. On appeal, the second respondent confirmed the orders of removal, vide Order dated 08. 05. 1995. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 818 of 1995 and the same was disposed of on 20. 3. 1998 observing that the punishment of removal from service is excessive and disproportionate to the proved charges and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal for moderate punishment. The second respondent passed an order dated 25. 06. 1998 confirming the penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 945 of 1998 and the same was dismissed on 3. 9. 1999. Against that order, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 26770 of 1999 and the same was allowed on 22. 06. 2001 setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, as also the order dated 25. 6. 1998 of the second respondent and directed the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order of this court, the petitioner approached the appellate authority-second respondent to consider for imposing a moderate penalty, but he confirmed his earlier decision by order dated 09. 08. 2001. Thereafter, he filed O. A. No. 1483 of 2001 and the same was allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider the matter afresh and to comply with directions of this court in W. P. No. 26770 of 1999 and pass fresh orders. After the remand, orders were passed on 13. 04. 2004 once again rejecting the request of the petitioner for imposing a moderate penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 623 of 2004 and the same was allowed with costs by order dated 6. 3. 2007 directing the second respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of orders of this Court, but the second respondent rejected the same by order dated 30. 04. 2007. Again he filed O. A. No. 549 of 2007 and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the O. A. , the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.