ORDER : 1. Petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking following relief: “… to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the respondent No.4 in removing the petitioner from service by conducting enquiry in the absence of the petitioner vide D.No.292/2015, C.No.04/OE-PR/2014 dated 30.09.2015 and the rejection orders made in Appeal and Revision issued by the Respondent No.3 and 2 issued vide C.No.23/Appeal-P1/2015 R.O.No.171/2016, dated 26.03.2016, R.C.No.181/A3/NCZ-VSP/Revision/2016 dated 03.11.2016 as nothing but illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short “CCA Rules”) and consequently to set aside the said proceedings in D.No.292/2015, C.No.04/OE-PR/2014 dated 30.09.2015 issued by respondent No.4 with a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential and benefits and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. a) Petitioner joined as AR police constable on 06.06.1992. Petitioner was transferred to District Armed Reserve, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. He reported sick on 24.03.2012. He was on leave till 20.06.2012. Petitioner was supposed to report to duty on the Forenoon of 21.06.2012 with fitness certificate. One week prior to the said reporting date, due to severe weakness he fell down in bathroom and sustained injury to his head and lost conscious and memory, as a consequence, he lost all details. In the first week of June, 2015, while the petitioner was moving in agency area, due to sudden fall on the road, he gain lost memory. After he gained memory, he went in search of his wife and children and reached the house of his in-laws at Bommuru and his wife informed him about the order in D.O.No.683/2012 dated 09.08.2012 of 4th respondent declaring him as deserter with effect from 21.06.2012. b) Petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent on 10.06.2015 with a request to reinstate him into service. 4th Respondent vide proceedings in D.O.No.197/2015 of C.No.2045/A5/2014 dated 15.06.2015 allowed the petitioner to join the duty with immediate effect pending departmental enquiry. Petitioner reported to duty and was discharging his duties. Basing on the articles of charges framed against him for desertion under Rule 20 of CCA Rules, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner furnishing copy of minutes and the petitioner was asked to submit explanation/written statement. Petitioner reported to duty and was discharging his duties. Basing on the articles of charges framed against him for desertion under Rule 20 of CCA Rules, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner furnishing copy of minutes and the petitioner was asked to submit explanation/written statement. Petitioner submitted written statement on 27.09.2015. After considering his statement of defence, 4th respondent awarded with penalty of Removal from Service as per G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003 vide proceedings D.O.No.292/2015, C.No.04/OE-PR/2014 dated 30.09.2015. Against the said order, petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority i.e. 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings in C.No.23/Appeal-P1/2015, R.O.No.171/2016 dated 26.03.2016 rejected the appeal. Against the same, petitioner filed revision before the 2nd respondent. Vide Rc.No.181/A2/NCZ-VSP/Revision/2016 dated 03.11.2016, the revisional authority rejected the revision. Challenging the said order, the above writ petition is filed. 3. (a) Counter affidavit was filed by 4th respondent, wherein it was contended that petitioner was initially appointed as police constable in Guntur District on 30.06.1992. Subsequently, he was transferred to East Godavari District on mutual transfer basis on 06.01.2001. Petitioner during his service, absented himself from duty from 08.02.2000 to 14.02.2000 and he was awarded ‘Censure’ treating the said absent period as LWP. Petitioner again absented himself from duty from 17.05.2010 to 19.07.2010. The petitioner was awarded ‘PPI’ for one year without effect on future increments and pension and the period of absence from 17-5-2010 to 19-7-2010 was treated as ‘LWP’. Petitioner exhibited gross neglect of duty and reprehensible conduct by absenting himself to duty from 11.10.2008 without leave or permission and became deserter. Petitioner was awarded ‘RTSP’ by two stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension and the period of absence from 11.10.2008 to 03.07.2009 is treated as ‘LWP’. Again the petitioner absented himself from duty from 21.06.2012 without leave or permission and became deserter. After conducting enquiry and after following the procedure, petitioner was removed from service by proceedings in D.O.No.292/2015 (C.No.04/OEPR/2014 dated 30.09.2015. (b) On 24.03.2012, petitioner reported sick and stated to be suffering from ill-health and he is extended medical leave till 20.06.2012. After completion of leave, he had to report to duty on 21.06.2012, but he failed to report to duty till 11.07.2012. Hence, the Reserve Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Rajamahendravaram submitted report against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence. (b) On 24.03.2012, petitioner reported sick and stated to be suffering from ill-health and he is extended medical leave till 20.06.2012. After completion of leave, he had to report to duty on 21.06.2012, but he failed to report to duty till 11.07.2012. Hence, the Reserve Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Rajamahendravaram submitted report against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence. Basing on the said report, the then Superintendent of Police declared him as deserter with effect from 21.06.2012 vide D.O.No.683 /2012 (Lr.No.308/A5/2012) dated 09.08.2012 as per Order No.184 of A.P. Police Manual Volume-I. Memorandum of charge, vide C.No.04/OEPR/2014 dated 30.06.2014 has been prepared and sent to the petitioner. Since whereabouts of petitioners are not known, it could not be served on the petitioner. However, notice was served to petitioner’s wife. (c) The DSP, Central Zone, Rajamahendravaram was appointed as enquiry officer vide Memorandum in C.No.4/OEPR/2014 dated 15.09.2014 to conduct oral enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner. The enquiry officer conducted exparte enquiry in the absence of petitioner by following Order No.184 of A.P. Police Manual Volume-I. The enquiry officer examined five witnesses including the wife of petitioner as P.W.4. Basing on the evidence, the enquiry officer concluded that allegations leveled in articles of charge against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt and submitted minutes to 4th respondent. (d) While so, on 10.06.2015, the petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent with a request to reinstate him into service. Petitioner was reinstated into service without prejudice to departmental proceedings pending against him. Since oral enquiry was already completed, a show cause notice along with copy of minutes was issued to the petitioner vide C.No.4/OEPR/2014 dated 01.09.2015 calling for his further written statement of defence. Petitioner submitted his further written statement of defence to 4th respondent. After considering the explanation of charged officer and material on record, 4th respondent awarded punishment of removal from service as per G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003 vide proceedings D.O.No.292/2015 (C.No.4/OEPR/2014) dated 03.09.2015. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and the same was confirmed by the revisional authority. (e) As per the service record, the petitioner is habituated to absenting for duties frequently without leave or permission. The wife of petitioner deposed in her evidence during oral enquiry that her husband disappeared from 12.04.2012 and did not return and when she approached the DSP, AR, Rajahmundry to enquire about his whereabouts. (e) As per the service record, the petitioner is habituated to absenting for duties frequently without leave or permission. The wife of petitioner deposed in her evidence during oral enquiry that her husband disappeared from 12.04.2012 and did not return and when she approached the DSP, AR, Rajahmundry to enquire about his whereabouts. She came to know that her husband was on medical leave, but did not come back to report to duty. She also deposed that she enquired about her husband and came to know that her husband did coconut business and borrowed huge amounts of money from known persons and was in debts. During June, 2012 petitioner’s wife approached the Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Rajamahendravaram, who, inurn, enquired into the matter, traced petitioner and handed over to her on 23.06.2012. The petitioner stayed at her parents’ house at Bommuru for a period of three days only and left the house on 27.07.2012 and did not come back and his whereabouts are not known. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner attended duty on 15.06.2015 and after the petitioner attended duty no fresh enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was asked to submit further written statement of defence and he submitted the same on 23.09.2015. He would submit that without considering the defence, order was passed by 4th respondent terminating the services of petitioner on 30.09.2015. According to learned counsel, the order doesn’t contain any reasons. He would submit that since the order passed by 4th respondent lacks reason neither the appeallate authority or the revisional authority considered the same, they are liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents would submit that the authority upon considering the petitioner’s written statement of defence, passed order and awarded penalty of removal from service. He would also submit that the enquiry officer followed the procedure and since the charged officer is not available, articles of charge under Rule 20 of CCA Rules was not acknowledged by him. He would also submit that the petitioner is habituated in absenting from duties and three times prior to removal from service, he was awarded punishment of Censure, PPI and RTSP. 7. He would also submit that the petitioner is habituated in absenting from duties and three times prior to removal from service, he was awarded punishment of Censure, PPI and RTSP. 7. As can be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner was appointed as police constable on 30.06.1992. Petitioner was awarded ‘Censure’ by order D.O.No.450/2001 (C.No.13/A10/2001) dated 07.04.2001 by SP, Guntur and the period of absence from 08.02.2000 to 14.02.2000 is treated as LWP. Petitioner was again awarded ‘PPI’ for one year without effect on future increments and pension and the absence period from 17.05.2010 to 19.07.2010 is treated as ‘LWP’ vide D.O.No.898/2011 (C.No.70/OEPR/2010) dated 03.11.2011 by SP of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada. Petitioner was also awarded ‘RTSP’ by two stages for two years with effect on future increments and pension and the period of absence from 11.10.2008 to 03.07.2009 is treated as ‘LWP’ vide D.O.No.1009/2011 (C.No.1/OEPR/2010) dated 19.12.2011 by SP of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada. Petitioner reported sick on 24.03.2012 and medical leave was extended till 20.06.2012. However, petitioner could not report to duty till 11.07.20121. Since the petitioner did not report to duty, the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, as per the report of Reserve Inspector, Armed Reserve, Rajamahendravaram dated 25.07.2012, declared him as deserter and the said declaration was made in accordance with Order No.184 of A.P Police Manual Volume-I. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Urban District, Rajamahendravaram issued articles of charge under Rule 20 of CCA Rules against the charged officer. However, it was not acknowledged by the charged officer, since he is not available. However, it was served on wife of charged officer. During the course of enquiry, five witnesses were examined including the wife of petitioner as P.W.4. 9. The wife of petitioner deposed that her husband did not visit the house from 12.04.2012 and when she enquired the DSP, Armed Reserve, he, in turn, informed that petitioner went on leave on medical grounds and also on the ground of his mother’s death. She further deposed that her husband did coconut business and also borrowed amounts. She lodged complaint with Superintendent of Police-Urban District, Rajamahendravaram and on enquiries, her husband was handed over to her on 23.06.2012 and he came to Bommuru and stayed there for three days and left the house on 27.07.2012 and from that day, his whereabouts are not known. She further deposed that her husband did coconut business and also borrowed amounts. She lodged complaint with Superintendent of Police-Urban District, Rajamahendravaram and on enquiries, her husband was handed over to her on 23.06.2012 and he came to Bommuru and stayed there for three days and left the house on 27.07.2012 and from that day, his whereabouts are not known. He used to telephone with Cell No.9581998677, however he did not disclose his whereabouts. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner, pending proceedings, was reinstated into service on 15-6-2015 without prejudice to departmental proceedings. After the petitioner joined service, he was directed to submit written statement defense and in fact, he submitted the same. Upon considering the same, order was passed imposing penalty removing from service. 11. The order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the 4th respondent reads as follows: “I have carefully gone the memorandum of charge, entire O.E. record, Minutes of the Enquiry Officer and the final written statement of defence of the charged officer. On perusal of the minute along with the entire OE record submitted by the EO, it is revealed that the charged officer absented for duty without leave or permission from 21.06.2012 to 19.06.2015. As the charged officer absented for duties for about these years i.e. 21.06.2012 to 19.06.2015, I award him with the penalty of REMOVAL FROM SERVICE as per G.O.Ms.No.260 dt.04.09.2003 after duly following the procedure laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1991.” 12. The order dated 30.09.2015 also reflects 5th reference, which refers to the written statement of defence of petitioner. As stated supra, the order was passed on consideration of material available on record. 13. The order under appeal by 3rd respondent reads as follows: “I have gone through the appeal petition and the concerned PR record pertaining to this appeal. Though, it was mentioned in the appeal petition that the appellant suffered from ill-health and mental disorder, he has not produced any supporting medical reports. It is proved in the enquiry that he has absented himself for a period of 3 years and basing on this, punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, I feel that there are no grounds to interfere with the punishment awarded to the appellant. Hence, appeal is considered and rejected.” 14. It is proved in the enquiry that he has absented himself for a period of 3 years and basing on this, punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, I feel that there are no grounds to interfere with the punishment awarded to the appellant. Hence, appeal is considered and rejected.” 14. The order under revision by 2nd respondent is extracted below: “I have gone through the entire file and the explanation submitted by the appellant. His absence for so many years could not be explained like flimsy story. There is no medical evidence to prove the story. There is no merit in his explanation and therefore it is considered and rejected.” 15. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 23.09.2015. According to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he fell down in the bathroom and sustained injury to his head and lost conscious and memory. During the first week of June, 2015, while he was moving in agency area, due to sudden fall on the road and due to sudden impact on his head, he suffered shock and gained lost memory. The statement/deposition of P.W.4, wife of petitioner is running contrary to the written statement defense submitted by the petitioner. According to wife, the petitioner did not turn up to house from 12.04.2012 and when she enquired DSP, AR, Rajamahendravaram, he in turn informed about his getting medical leave and also about petitioner informed the authority about death of his mother and brother. When the wife of petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram Urban District, petitioner was brought back to the house on 23.06.2012. She also deposed about her husband doing coconut business and also contacting her with Cell No.9581998677. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner should be considered. In the case on hand, as can be seen from the material on record, petitioner absented himself from duties for almost three years. The written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner as well as the statement given by wife of petitioner was considered by the authority. The reason mentioned in the order is that the petitioner failed to explain his absence from duties without leave or permission for almost three years. When there is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner, the authorities passed the order basing on the material available and in fact, reasons were assigned. The reason mentioned in the order is that the petitioner failed to explain his absence from duties without leave or permission for almost three years. When there is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner, the authorities passed the order basing on the material available and in fact, reasons were assigned. Though the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the order lacks reasons, this Court is not persuaded with the said submission. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal, (1999) 7 SCC 332 , Giving of opportunity is a check and balance concept that no one's right be taken away without giving him opportunity or without enquiry in a given case where allegations and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations. In a case where the facts are almost admitted, the case reveals itself and is apparent on the face of the record, and in spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming, it would not be a fit case to interfere with the termination order. 17. In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the aspect of principles of natural justice held thus: “21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [ (1999) 6 SCC 237 ] there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [ AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172 ] it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice. 22. of A.P. [ AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172 ] it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice. 22. In M.C. Mehta [ (1999) 6 SCC 237 ] it was pointed out that at one time, it was held in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other “de facto” prejudice needed to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] Chinnappa Reddy, J. followed Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL)] and set aside the order of supersession of the New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice though notice was not given. The proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But even in that case certain exceptions were laid down to which we shall presently refer. 23. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor case [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] laid down two exceptions (at SCC p. 395) namely, if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception. 24. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 62] Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed, quoting Wade's Administrative Law (5th Edn., pp. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 62] Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed, quoting Wade's Administrative Law (5th Edn., pp. 472-75), as follows : (SCC p. 58, para 31) “[I]t is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. … There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so forth.” Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 :1996 SCC (L&S) 717]. In that case, the principle of “prejudice” has been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 ] 26. It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] , namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts, only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Mr Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued.” 18. Case on hand, as discussed supra, petitioner having been absented to attend duties failed to produce any medical evidence in support of his case. Petitioner’s conduct would also reveal that three times prior to last absent, he absented from attending duties and suffered punishment. As noticed supra, statement/deposition of wife of petitioner being P.W.4 and written statement defense of petitioner are differing. The order may not be running into pages, but sufficient reasons, basing on material are been given. Petitioner’s conduct would also reveal that three times prior to last absent, he absented from attending duties and suffered punishment. As noticed supra, statement/deposition of wife of petitioner being P.W.4 and written statement defense of petitioner are differing. The order may not be running into pages, but sufficient reasons, basing on material are been given. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the 4th respondent, confirmed by 3rd respondent in appeal and further confirmed by 2nd respondent in revision. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions, shall stand closed.