IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal without a regular departmental enquiry is contrary to the settled principles of law and the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

J.SREENIVAS RAO,J. - This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in RC.No.4152/Estt/2003-04 dtd. 28/12/2003 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services with all the consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri K.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Polavaram Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1 Petitioner submitted that he was appointed as messenger in respondent No.1 bank on compassionate grounds and while he was in service he was attacked with a back pain and frequent pain in the abdomen and in the result the petitioner could not be able to move from bed and could not attend his duties regularly from 29/5/2000. The petitioner further submitted that respondent No.1 issued charge memo on 9/4/2001 directing the petitioner to submit an explanation. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 26/4/2001. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued another notice on 13/3/2003 and the petitioner submitted explanation on 26/3/2003. He further stated that respondent No.1 issued impugned proceedings dtd. 28/12/2003 dismissing him from the services without conducting any enquiry and the same is contrary to the law.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter contending that petitioner while working as messenger in the respondent Corporation he was absent from the duties without applying for any leave to the competent authority and after issuing several memos calling for his explanation the respondent No.1 issued charge memo dtd. 9/4/2001 stating that he was absent from duty w.e.f. 16/11/2000 without applying for any kind of leave or intimation and thereby committed misconduct and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the respondent authorities within seven days from the date of receipt of the charge memo. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26/4/2001 where he has admitted his guilt but stated the he is suffering with many diseases and as such he could not attend the bank and requested the respondent No.1 to drop the charges and permit him to continue his services on humanitarian grounds. Basing on the said explanation respondent bank issued proceedings dtd. 9/10/2002 posting him as messenger at Garla branch and he joined the duties at Garla branch on 12/10/2002 and worked for a period of six days and again was absent from the duties w.e.f 18/10/2002 without applying for any leave or intimation. At that stage respondent No.1 bank has issued memo dtd. 22/11/2022 calling for explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Petitioner did not submit any explanation to the said memo. He further stated that the respondent No.1 bank issued final notice dtd. 13/3/2003 and directed him to submit explanation as to why he should not be terminated from the service. The petitioner submitted explanation on 26/3/2003 by admitting all the facts in the final notice and reiterated his health condition requesting respondent No.1 to reinstate him into services on humanitarian grounds. In view of the admission made by the petitioner to the charges leveled against him, respondent no.1 bank has not conducted any enquiry and the disciplinary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, issued proceedings dtd. 28/12/2003 dismissing the petitioner from the services and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.1 passed impugned order vide RC.No.4152/Estt/2003-04 dtd. 28/12/2003 dismissing the petitioner from the services imposing highest punishment without conducting any enquiry especially departmental enquiry. The impugned order passed b