The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an order, direction or nature of writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in 1.D.No.133 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Government lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour court, Hyderabad and quash the award dt-23-9-2010 in not granting any relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits and consequently direct respondents lo reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and backwages. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. JITHENDER (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRTJUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.12184 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Tradesman-I in the respondent- Nuclear Fuel (Jomplex in the year 1991. In August, 199tt, on the ground of mental illness (Bip,olar Affective Disorder), he applied for medical leave, and thereafter extended his leave. It is stated that during the period he was mentally ill, his father went missing, and his mental illness worsened; and he had to extend his leave and his family had shifted hir.r to Bangalore lor change of weather. l.l The re,spondent authorities issued notices tr the petitioner to rejoin the duties, h,:wever, there was no response; and a paper publication was issued. As the;'e was no response, a charge memo ,vas issued calling lor explanation tiom lhe petitioner. As there was no rt.,plv to the charge memo, the DeparLment initiated disciplinary proceer.lings, setting the petitioner ex pat'te. and imposed the punishment of rerrroval frorn service vrZe Order dated 28.08.2000. l.Z After ftve years from the dismissal i.e., on 27.04.2005, the petitioner approaclLed the respondent-Department to r,i)sume his duties; however, he lvas informed that he was removed fro m service in the departmental enquiry in the year 2000. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellale Authority (i.e., the Secretary to the Govermnenr of lndia, Departrnent of Atomic Energy) challenging h is removal frorn service, also ended in rejection by Order dated 21.10.200:i. - 2 wP.No. t2164 ol20l2 NBK,J

1.3 The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Cornt, v ide Industrial Dispute L.C.No.133 of 2005. The Tribunal, by Order dated23.09.2010, dismissed the case. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. G. Ravi Mohan, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; and Mr. B. Jithender, leamed counsel for respondent- Department. Perused the record.

3. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner had initiatty applied lor medical leave in August, 1998, and extended his leave for treatment as well as on the ground of his father missing. The Department issued notices through Telegrams dated 21.09.1998,08.10.1998, 14. 10.1998, and

22.10.1998 and also issued a Charge Memo dated 10. 12.1998. However, there was no response to the notices or the charge memo. The Department thereby proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings, setting the petitioner ex parte, and imposed the punishment of removal from service vde Proceedings dated 28.08.2000. The petitioner, after a lapse of five years from the removal, approached the respondent Department for resumption o[ duties, whereupon he was told that he was already dismissed from service in the year 2000. It is to be noted that it is the specific recording by the Tribunal,

4. borne out by the material evidence on record, that the petitioner had not flrted any evidence (like an FIR or a missing report) in support of the contention that his father went missing; furtheq the medical prescriptions dated 10.09.1999,02.02.2000 do not show any bedrest recommended for '' the petitioner. Moreover, it is the specific recording by the Tribunal that the Medical Certificate dated 26.04.2005 shows that the petitioner has been F U/.P No.l2l84 ot 20 t2 NBK,J irregular in medication with poor drug compliance. This indicates that the petttloner was not m inpatient in any hospital for tht ' alleged mental illness, but an outpatient, and there is no medical necessitating an absence of seven years for treatment. recommendation 5 Furtheq the evidence placed by the petitioner, befirre the Tribunal, nowhere discloses thal hc responded to the commu rication of the respondent-Dep.rtm.nt, nor substantiated his request for leave on mental illness with proper medical documentation, except for. a medical prescription stating that he was irregular in medicat on arrd taking medicine regularly s ince 2004 . 'fhe record shows that the petitioner has neither responded to r,e notices nor furnished reply to the ,;h2pgs memo. It is not the case of rhc petitioner that the respondent_authorities were prejudicial or acted r,ith mctla .fide intention. On the cont:ary, it is a fact bome out by the record that rhc authorities had initially grarrted reave to the petitioner, and trre poritioner kept on extending his leavr, period on the ground or'arleged urcntar illncss, without proper medicar :ertificate fiorn tirne to tirnc' Even the medical certificate fumished by the petitioner before the Tribunal states thar he was regular in medication since 02.01 .2004, almost aftcr six years rf his alleged rnental illness; and alm.rst in a year, he is said to have becorne {it to resume duty from 27.04.2005. 6. The petitioner having joined in the year 1991, wa:r on continued absence since t99g orr the ground of mental illness, and resurfaced afler seven -veafs in 2005 requesting to permit him to resume iris duties. The Tribunal has appreciated tr-re ,raterial evidence ava,able on record in proper perspectivr: anci corne to a just conclusion that there is no i,egarity in the action of the ..espondent-Management to dismiss or remove an \ I I i I I / I I i l l l I I I I I 4 WPNo.l2l84 ot20l2 NBK,J unwilling emproyee. In that view of the matter, this court does not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal wa*anting interference by this court under extraordinary jurisdiction under Articre 226 of the Constitution.

7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this ordeq before the respondent_authorities for any monetary benefits that he may be entitled for the period of service rendered from l99l to 199g. Upon filing such application, the respondent authorities shall consider and dispose of the application strictly in accordance with the law, within a period of four weeks from the date ol application' Miscellaneous apprications, pending if any, shalt stand crosed. , I To, 1 2 3 TJ TKS SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI S HANKAR IS ANT REGISTRAR l l //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER Pff Eght'o'[fJ,iy.?1zt^fl'Jii%%tgi'BL*,..rropuc] \q- HIGH COURT DATED:241061202s ORDER WP.No.12184 of 2012 to 1i* t '1;-... -l ,.9 'v t I 2ffP206 f 'l- -!' ,t . :7 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u.S w- Xflar