The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, ensuring procedural compliance, and providing a fair and reasoned decision-making process in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT

V.SRINIVAS, J. - Heard Sri K.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-Applicant, Sri V.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Services-IV, for the official respondents and Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent.

2. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dtd. 25/8/2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A.No.50 of 2014.

3. To determine the writ, the shorn of the facts of the case is required.

4. The petitioner while working as Senior Assistant in P.HC., Tharlam, Vizianagaram District, initially, applied for medical leave from 8/11/1995 for one month, due to medical issues, i.e., unable to walk and discharge his duties and undergoing treatment, his wife expired, due to which he went in depression and his treatment continued till 6/1/1999. During all this period of his treatment, he was said to have submitted continuous leave applications to the respondent officials. When he got completely cured, submitted a representation to the 4th respondent requesting for reposting orders by producing his entire medical history. Then he was allowed to join duty in the existing vacancy as Senior Assistant at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, with due obedience of reposting orders issued by the 4th respondent in R.C.No.5691/B1/98, dtd. 6/1/1999.

5. After rejoining duty, requested the authorities for several times regulation of said period. Thereafter, in January 2008, he submitted a representation to the authorities duly requesting to regularize the leave as (1) earned leave for 120 days, (2) half pay leave-remaining period on medical grounds, in accordance with his eligibility. Since leave period is not regularized till 2008, he submitted representations on 18/7/2008 and 23/10/2008 for the leave period regularization, in response, the Superintendent King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, sent proposals to the 4th respondent, vide R.C.No.6500/E1/2008, dtd. 23/10/2008. Then the 4th respondent sought certain remarks from Superintendent, K.G.H., vide R.C.No.1939/B1/2008, dtd. 13/11/2008.

6. Again, he submitted a representation on 8/4/2009 to the 4th respondent and requested to consider his request. Upon which, an enquiry officer was appointed by the 4th respondent, to conduct an enquiry against him on 11/5/2009. After receiving such enquiry notice, he submitted his statement on 8/6/2009 to the Enquiry Officer with all details.

7. Thereafter, the 4th respondent framed charges and served on him, vide R.C.No.1939/B1/2009, dtd. 1/1/2010. Then, he submitted his written statement of defense on 11/8/2010 to the Charge Memo, dtd. 1/1/2010, vide R.C.No.1939/B1/2009. Again, the 4th respondent appointed an enquiry officer, vide R.C.No.1939/B1/2009, dtd. 18/5/2010, to conduct an enquiry under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.C.C.A.Rules'). Since, enquiry officer did not conduct enquiry, another enquiry officer was appointed on 3/11/2010 to complete the enquiry under the same charges.

8. The enquiry officer submitted his report, vide R.C.No.97/SA/2010, dtd. 18/5/2011, to the 4th respondent; the opinion of the enquiry officer is, 'found not guilty against him as he applied leave from time to time on medical grounds'. Hence, the leave period is regularized as per leave eligibility. Thereafter, the 4th respondent herein issued an order in L.Dis.No.1114/B1/2011, dtd. 20/9/2011 and regularized his services and declared his probation in the cadre of Senior Assistant.

9. While such is the situation, the 5th respondent, who is his junior, applied to the 1st respondent with a grievance that his promotion has been denied and delayed from 2011.

10. The petitioner further submits, said 5th respondent is at Serial No.50 in the seniority list, whereas he is at Serial No.44. Moreover, "Neither the petitioner nor the 5th responde