G.V. Seethapathy, J.

1. This application is filed by the petitioner under Order XL VII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the order dated 23-03-2005 in W.P.No.3478 of 2004, wherein the said writ petition filed by the respondents herein for quashing the order dated 11-03-2003 in O.A.No.4949 of 2000, on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, was allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Perused the records.

3. A few facts, which are relevant for disposal of this application, can be stated thus:

The petitioner herein was appointed as Fireman in 1962 and was subsequently promoted as Driver/Operator in 1975. He was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 02-02-1983 to 21-10-1986. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated for his unauthorized absence, which resulted in his dismissal from service. On appeal, the order of dismissal was set aside and alternative punishment was imposed and he was reinstated into service in 1986. On 29-12-1992, he fell sick and was admitted in Osmania General Hospital. He, however, did not, intimate the authorities about his absence. A charge sheet was issued to him by the department for the unauthorized absence, but it could not be served on him as he was not available at the address given by him. Thereafter, an ex parte enquiry was conducted and he was ultimately dismissed from service on 12-01-1994. On 27-03-1995, the petitioner filed an application and the same was also dismissed. On his representation to Government, the date of dismissal was changed from 29-12-1992 to 12-01-1994. Against the said order, he filed O.A.No.4949 of 2000 before the A.P.A.T. The Tribunal held that enquiry was not conducted properly and the enquiry report was also not furnished to the petitioner herein and accordingly allowed the O.A. Assailing the said order of the Tribunal, the department filed W.P.No.3478 of 2004. After hearing both sides, this Court held that the conduct of the petitioner herein in not intimating the department about his alleged admission in the hospital due to sickness was not justifiable. It was further held that ex parte enquiry had to be conducted as the petitioner herein was not available at the last address given by him and having regard to the previous conduct of the petitioner herein, who was in the habit of absenting himself unauthorisedly for years together, he does not deserve any sympathy. It was also held that the service of copy of the enquiry officer’s report also does not arise, as the whereabouts of the petitioner herein were not known. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the petitioner was held unsustainable and the same was set aside and the order of dismissal of the petitioner herein from service was confirmed. The writ petition was, thus, allowed on 23-03-2005. The petitioner herein allowed the said order to become final, as he has not challenged the same.

4. The petitioner now seeks review of the order in the writ petition mainly on the ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner herein could not bring to the notice of the Court certain decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that notices must be given to the last known address as maintained in the service record and in case last known address is not traced out, the disciplinary authority must resort to substituted service by giving publicity in the local news papers.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1) AIR 1991 SC 471 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Art.311 (2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent in the mater of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Art.311 (2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the