APHC011126282004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8893/2004 Between: Nsr Prasad, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND The Commodore Visakhapatnam 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2. S SIVA KUMARI The Court made the following order: The Writ Petition is instituted seeking the following main relief: “….to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire record pertaining to impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent No.CE/9100/119, dt. 27.3.2003 and the record pertaining to charge dt. 3.10.2000 as well as exparte enquiry report and quashing or setting aside the same holding the same as wholly unsustainable and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Asst. Store Keeper with back wages, arrears and other consequential benefits and to pass such…” 2 2. Heardthe learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, he initially joined as Fireman Grade-Il in the year 1983, in the Respondent’s Force. Subsequently got promoted as Assistant store keeper. While he was discharging his duties, respondent No.1 passed impugned orders vide CE.No.9100/119, dated 27.03.2003, whereby the writ petitioner was removed from services on the ground of his unauthorized absence from his duties. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been instituted. The main ground of the petitioner is that, no notice was served to him before passing impugned orders against him. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the counter filed on behalf of the respondents mainly exposed the maintainability of the very writ petition, given not availing the effective alternative remedy. It is specifically averred in the counter that Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 coupled with the well-settled legal principles, the office remedy available to the petitioner is the Tribunal, but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also touching other aspects against the petitioner including fraudulently availing loan, by showcasing his previous pay slip as if he is in service etc. 5. To test whether the violation of principles of natural justice existed in the lis or not? To that extent, the brief facts are referred hereunder:- 3 6. It is categorically asserted by the petitioner's counsel that, no notice was served to him before passing the impugned order. Thus, on the plank of violation of principles of Natural Justice, he invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present writ petition. 7. Conversely, the respondents filed their counter stating that the Charge Memorandum was sent to the writ petitioner’s residential address, furnished to the Authorities by the petitioner and the same was returned with an Endorsement ‘addressee left’. Hence returned to the sender. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer and presenting officer were appointed to hold an enquiry as contemplated in the procedure in vogue. The said enquiry officer sent two notices to the petitioner directing him to appear for an enquiry on 30.12.2000 and 29.01.2001. The said twin notices were also returned by the postal authorities as undelivered. 8. In the meantime, as the petitioner’s whereabouts are not known, a notice was published in the New Indian Express and Daily News Paper on 20.05.2001, whereunder directing the petitioner to report for duty or to submit a representation within one month, from the date of receipt of publication of the said notice in respect of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and Charge Memo against the petitioner proved. The Writ Petitioner reported for duty on 16.06.2001 after a long absence from 27.06.2000 to 15.07.2001, including the period of absence mentioned in the Charge Memorandum. 4 9. In fact, an enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner, who in turn also submitted his representation against the findings of an Enquiry Officer.Thereafter his case was considered by the Competent disciplinary/appointing authority i.e., Chief Staff (Personnel and Administration) Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam, and passed the impugned orders. 10. It is apt to note that from the conceptus of the above apparent facts and circumstances, it seems that the respondent authorities duly sent notices to the last known address of the petitioner through registered post. In this context, in view of purport of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, as well as Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, coupled with well-settled legal principle, held in D. Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda1 of the Apex Court, which amounts to deemed service of notice. 11. Evidently, this out not passed any interim orders at the threshold. More so, the petitioner merely pleaded a violation of principles of Natural Justice so as to maintain the lis, but was not able to satisfy the violations and the prejudice he suffered. In Nutshell, prima facie no violation of principles of Natural Justice in order to maintain the lis under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. 12. In the light of peculiar facts and circumstances, involved in the lis, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is not able to demonstrate the factum 12006 (6) SCC 456 5 of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Tribunal. It is needless to say that the petitioner can avail the provisions of the Limitation Act to pursue his legal remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:09.01.2025 SCS 6 19 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.8893 of 2004 09.01.2025 SCS