THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 34511 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri N.B.Sudarshan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; and Sri B.Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to set aside the dismissal order issued vide impugned orders No. Vig./VC-1/2009/54, dated 22-9-2011 by the 1 Respondent herein and the orders passed in M.A. No. 021/10/2025 in O.A. SR. No. 021/09/2025 and O.A. SR No. 021/09/2025, dated 16-7-2025 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, keeping in view of the Judgment passed in C.C. No. 677 of 2014, dated 16-2-2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar and to declare the action of the Respondents in imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service vide impugned orders No. Vig./VC-1/2009/54, dated 22-9- 2011 as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the Rules and the Law and consequently direct the Respondent to grant all the service benefits to the Petitioner including pension and pensionary benefits with arrears and other service benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The petitioner assails the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed M.A.No.021/10/2025 (for short ‘M.A’) seeking condonation of delay as being barred by limitation, and consequently dismissed the Original Application vide O.A.SR.No.021/09/2025 (for short ‘O.A’) filed by the petitioner.

Chronological events and factual matrix of the case

4. In the present case, the petitioner, a former UDC in the National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (NIRD), primarily sought the setting aside of the dismissal order dated 22.09.2011 on the ground that it was never communicated to him and that he became aware of the dismissal only upon receiving a copy along with the respondents’ letter dated 10.09.2024; that the period of limitation for assailing the dismissal order should be reckoned from 10.09.2024; and that the O.A. instituted in January 2025 was within time or, in the alternative, involved only a bona fide delay of 316 days.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

i. That the dismissal order dated 22.09.2011 was never communicated to the petitioner and that the petitioner became aware of it only upon receipt of a copy enclosed with the respondents’ letter dated 10.09.2024, issued in response to his representation; thus, the period of limitation ought to be reckoned from 10.09.2024, and that the O.A. being instituted in January 2025 was within limitation or and entailed delay of only

316 days.

ii. That the petitioner’s absence from duty since 2008 was not wilful, but was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control, inasmuch as he was compelled to stay away from the workplace owing to serious threats and physical assault allegedly meted out to him by members of a chit fund group and certain employees of the office.

iii. That the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated for gross violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the charge memorandum, enquiry notices, and the enquiry report were never served upon him; that the ex parte enquiry was a mere fo