Page 1

                                NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2768-2769 OF 2013 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) Nos.719-720 OF 2011]

Mohd. Yousuf … Appellant

Versus

Director General of Fire Services, A. P. & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. One of these two appeals is directed against the main judgment and  

order,  dated  March  23,  2005  passed  by a  division  bench of  the  Andhra  

Pradesh High Court in writ petition No.3478 of 2004. By this judgment, the  

High Court, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, set aside the  

order  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Administrative  Tribunal  and  restored  and  

confirmed the order of the appellant’s dismissal from service. Against the  

1

Page 2

judgment passed in the writ  petition, the appellant filed a review petition  

(Miscellaneous Petition No.12798 of 2005) which was dismissed by order  

dated April 13, 2010. The other appeal is filed against the order dismissing  

the review petition.  

4. The appellant  was working as a driver  at  Fire Station Sanathnagar  

under  the  Fire  Service  Department.  He  was  dismissed  from  service  

following  an  ex-parte enquiry  on  charges  of  unauthorized  absence.  The  

order  of  dismissal  was  passed  on  January  12,  1994  but  dismissal  from  

service was made retrospective, with effect from December 29, 1992.

5. The case of the appellant was that on account of ill health and family  

issues, he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from service  

with effect from December 1, 1992 under rule 43(1) of the Andhra Pradesh  

Revised  Pension  Rules,  1980.  His  application  was  neither  accepted  nor  

rejected, but on November 19, 1992, he was informed that a charge memo  

bearing No. 15/PR/89 was pending against him and, therefore, his request  

for  voluntary  retirement  would  be  considered only  after  its  disposal.  On  

November  25,  1992,  the  appellant  represented  before  the  departmental  

authority that the charge memo was disposed of in the year 1990 itself and  

requested that action be taken on his application for voluntary retirement.  

On November 26, 1992, the appellant was advised by the Divisional Fire  

2

Page 3

Officer  to  perform  his  duties  till  further  orders  were  received  from  the  

Regional  Fire Officer.  The matter stood at that stage when the appellant,  

while on duty on December 29, 1992 became ill and was admitted to the  

hospital where he was advised by the doctors complete bed rest for at least  

two months. While the appellant was unwell and was undergoing treatment,  

a charge memo, being Rc. 4/PR/A2/93 was issued against him on July 5,  

1993.  An ex-parte enquiry was held and the enquiry report was submitted to  

the Director General of Fire Services on November 27, 1993 and finally by  

order  dated  January  12,  1994,  the  appellant  was  dismissed  from service  

without being given a copy of the enquiry report or any opportunity to show  

cause against the proposed punishment.

6.   The appellant took recourse to departmental appeals. His appeals to  

the departmental officers were unsuccessful, but at the end of the hierarchy,  

the Home Minister passed the order on March 22, 1999 directing that the  

appellant’s  dismissal  would  be  effective  from  the  date  of  the  order  i.e.  

January 12, 1994 and not from the earlier date, December 29, 1992.  

7. His dismissal order was revised accordingly.  

8. Failing to get the desired relief from the departmental authorities, the  

appellant finally moved the Administrative Tribunal by O.A. No.4949/2000.  

The Tribunal by its order, dated March 11, 2003 found and held that the  

3

Page 4

enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules  

1991, and no enquiry report was furnished to the appellant. Further that on  

receipt  of  the  Enquiry  Officer’s  report,  the  Regional  Fire  Officer  

straightaway issued the order of punishment dismissing the applicant from  

service and, hence, his order was not in accordance with the A.P.C.S. (CC &  

A) Rules, 1991.  

9. On  a  consideration  of  the  material  facts  and  circumstances,  the  

Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of the appellant’s dismissal  

from service was wrongly passed. However, the Tribunal observed that the  

appellant had attained the age of 59 years in the year 2000 and had thus,  

retired from service in that year itself. Accordingly, while allowing the OA  

by order dated March 11, 2000, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay  

to the appellant his terminal dues, including pension.

10. The respondents challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ  

petition before the High Court and the High Court by its judgment and order  

dated March 23, 2005 allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment  

and order passed by the Tribunal. The review petition filed by the appellant  

was also dismissed by order dated April 13, 2010. The appellant has finally  

brought the matter to this Court in appeal by special leave.  

4

Page 5

11. On  hearing  Mr.  Devesh  Singh,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant  and  Mr.  G.N.  Reddy,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents  and on going through the materials  on record,  including the  

judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view that the  

Tribunal’s judgment is well  founded on a proper consideration of all  the  

material facts and circumstances and we see no reason for the High Court to  

interfere with that judgment, particularly on issues of facts.

12.  The High Court has taken the view that the  ex parte enquiry held  

against  the  appellant  could  not  be  faulted  as  his  whereabouts  were  not  

known and has also justified the non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report  

to the appellant for the same reason. However, the High Court seems to have  

overlooked that the notice with regard to the departmental enquiry was sent  

at the address of house No.147 but the correct address of the appellant was  

house No.177 and not No.147. Thus, the ex parte enquiry and the order of  

dismissal passed on that basis were quite vulnerable and the Tribunal has  

rightly held that the order of dismissal was passed on the basis of an enquiry  

which is untenable in law.  

13. In the facts of the case, there was no occasion for the High Court to  

exercise  its  jurisdiction  under  Article  227  of  the  Constitution.  We,  

5

Page 6

accordingly, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and restore the  

order of the Tribunal.

14. In the result, the appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs.  

……………………………...J. (Aftab Alam)

……………………………...J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi April 2, 2013.  

6