IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an employee's failure to attend disciplinary proceedings and provide credible medical evidence can justify dismissal from service.

ORDER :

(Harinath N., J.) :

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings of dismissal dated 31.03.2006 and seek the relief of reinstatement with back wages and other service benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Cashier on 13.06.1981. The petitioner was promoted as Junior Management- 1 in the year 1986. The petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam Zonal Office as Assistant Manager. The petitioner was relieved from Guntur Branch on 29.08.2003. The petitioner was required to report at Visakhapatnam branch on 30.08.2003.

3. The petitioner did not report to duty and sent leave letters along with some medical certificates seeking grant of medical leave. It is stated that the petitioner was admitted in Chennai Hospital on 16.12.2003 for treatment of mental imbalance.

4. It is stated that during the period of treatment of the petitioner the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the unauthorized absence of the petitioner and enquiry was conducted. The notice of enquiry was not served on the petitioner and that the enquiry officer issued paper publication requiring the petitioner to attend the enquiry proceedings. It is also stated that the petitioner could not attend the enquiry and that he could also not know about the paper publication as he was under treatment at Chennai.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority vide orders dated 18.10.2004 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed WP.No.19863 of 2005 challenging the order of dismissal and this Court vide order dated 09.09.2005 dismissed the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings under challenge.

6. The petitioner has stated that the original copy of the dismissal order passed by the 2nd respondent was misplaced and as such he could not file the original along with writ petition.

7. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioner was advised to appear before the Panel Doctor on 26.03.2004 for detailed medical examination, however, the petitioner failed to respond to the call of the respondents. It is submitted that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to come forward and putforth his case before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner remained uncontactable. However, the petitioner’s family members were staying in the residential address as furnished by the petitioner.

8. It is also submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has addressed letter dated 07.11.2009 to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, wherein the petitioner sought reinstatement and putforth his case before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste. The respondents submit that the petitioner arrested by the CBI Police and remanded to judicial custody at Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu while he was dismissed from service.

9. It is also submitted that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner were all issued by the Doctor based in Guntur. As such, the claim of the petitioner that he was treated at Chennai had no basis to even consider for the sake of assumption.

10. Heard both the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The petitioner was named as an Accused No.3 in FIR.No.8 of 2003 filed by CBI police, Visakhapatnam under Section 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 of IPC read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is said to have involved in the said offence along with other accused and caused wrongful loss to the bank to a tune of Rs.60,03,395/-. The petitioner was the then President of Andhra Bank BC, SC, ST and Minority Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited. The petitioner collected deposits from the employees and members and failed to repay the deposits on time. The depositors filed complaints which lead to the arrest of the petitioner.

12. The petitioner in the earlier round of litigation