M.RAVINDER RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner recruited as Deputy Jailor and joined service on 1/4/1986. On 4/7/1995 he applied to grant leave on health grounds. By proceedings dtd. 11/7/1995, leave was sanctioned from 12/7/1995 to 31/7/1995. After expiry of leave, petitioner claimed to have applied for extension of leave. The submission of application for extension of leave and not granting leave are the sticky issues, on which the subsequent proceedings were set in motion. On 21/8/1995 charge memo was drawn and issued alleging that petitioner unauthorizedly absent from duty without prior sanction of leave. It is alleged that petitioner did not respond to the said charge memo.

(2.) On 11/12/1995 show-cause notice was issued narrating the events leading to the said show-cause notice and holding that he was found to be unauthorizedly absent for the period beyond 31/7/1995, disciplinary authority proposed to impose punishment of dismissal from service and called upon his explanation as to why said punishment should not be imposed. In response to this show-cause notice, by representation dtd. 1/1/1996, while explaining reasons for his absence beyond 31/7/1995, petitioner also stated that he applied for extension of leave, that as his application for extension was not rejected, he assumed that leave was sanctioned and therefore it cannot be called as unauthorized absence. Though explanation was brief, he also sought two documents shown therein and requested additional time after the documents were supplied for more detailed explanation. According to the respondents, by letter dtd. 7/3/1996, documents sought by the petitioner were supplied, but he did not furnish further explanation. Having waited for considerable time, by orders dtd. 9/5/1996, order of dismissal from service was imposed. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority on 29/3/1997. The revision dtd. 7/7/1997 preferred before the Government is not acted upon by the Government.

(3.) In those circumstances, petitioner filed O.A.No.2116 of 2001 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said O.A., holding that as petitioner was unauthorizedly absent, and did not respond to the notices issued, the order of dismissal was validly passed. Further, since petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings, there was no need to supply copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and that there was no violation of provisions of the Telangana State Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'Rules, 1991 ') and accordingly affirmed the punishment imposed.