HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ORDER:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

01.05.2008 passed in OA.No.2039 of 2004 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the said OA was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Originally, this Writ Petition was filed by the delinquent employee-Sripathi Tarigopula/petitioner No.1 and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, he died and as such, his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

4. Brief factual matrix of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as District Probation Officer Grade-II in the month of January, 1975 and was promoted as District Probation Officer Grade-I in the year 1981 and further promoted as Superintendent/Regional Inspector of Probation on 16.08.1994; that while working as such, from 17.08.1994 to 04.10.1999, on a complaint that he has deliberately committed acts of gender discrimination and sexual harassment on subordinate female employees against the spirit of providing basic human rights of protection from sexual harassment and right to work with dignity to the women employees in work place, enquiry proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension, vide GO.Rt.No.391, dated 01.10.1999.

4.1. Challenging the said GO., petitioner No.1 filed OA.No.5943 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2002 directing the respondents to dispose of the charges framed against petitioner No.1 within two months from the date of receipt of the said order and in case, no charges are framed, petitioner No.1 shall be reinstated into service forthwith.

4.2. Thereafter, in the process of enquiry, the Deputy Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, issued summons to petitioner No.1, which were returned as unclaimed and as such, summons were got published in two leading newspapers, viz., Deccan Chronicle and Vaartha on 03.12.2002 and 04.12.2002 respectively, informing him to attend the enquiry and defend himself; that even after the said publication, petitioner No.1 did not appear and participate in the enquiry and hence, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with enquiry on 17.12.2002, 18.12.2002 and 08.01.2003 and submitted his report dated 15.02.2003.

4.3. Alleging that the respondents did not implement the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal passed in OA.No.5943 of 1999, petitioner No.1 filed CA.No.31 of 2003 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.09.2003 directed the official respondents to communicate a copy of enquiry report to petitioner No.1 and to pass final orders duly taking into consideration the explanation of petitioner No.1.

4.4. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.09.2003, the respondents communicated copy of the enquiry report to petitioner No.1, vide Memo No.EA1/934/99-1, dated 06.11.2003, asking him to submit his written defence statement, if any, on the findings of the enquiry report within ten days therefrom and further, to indicate whether he desires a personal hearing in order to fix a date of hearing. In reply thereto, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 21.11.2003 with a request to provide information/papers relating to enquiry report, however, in the said explanation, he neither denied the charges levelled against him nor requested any personal hearing. Since the respondents did not conclude the proceedings, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2003 directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings on or before 31.01.2004, failing which, petitioner No.1 shall be reinstated into service. Subsequently, the respondents issued GO.M