ORDER : (Harinath N., J.) : The petitioner is challenging the proceedings of dismissal dated 31.03.2006 and seek the relief of reinstatement with back wages and other service benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Cashier on 13.06.1981. The petitioner was promoted as Junior Management- 1 in the year 1986. The petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam Zonal Office as Assistant Manager. The petitioner was relieved from Guntur Branch on 29.08.2003. The petitioner was required to report at Visakhapatnam branch on 30.08.2003. 3. The petitioner did not report to duty and sent leave letters along with some medical certificates seeking grant of medical leave. It is stated that the petitioner was admitted in Chennai Hospital on 16.12.2003 for treatment of mental imbalance. 4. It is stated that during the period of treatment of the petitioner the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the unauthorized absence of the petitioner and enquiry was conducted. The notice of enquiry was not served on the petitioner and that the enquiry officer issued paper publication requiring the petitioner to attend the enquiry proceedings. It is also stated that the petitioner could not attend the enquiry and that he could also not know about the paper publication as he was under treatment at Chennai. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority vide orders dated 18.10.2004 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed WP.No.19863 of 2005 challenging the order of dismissal and this Court vide order dated 09.09.2005 dismissed the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings under challenge. 6. The petitioner has stated that the original copy of the dismissal order passed by the 2nd respondent was misplaced and as such he could not file the original along with writ petition. 7. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioner was advised to appear before the Panel Doctor on 26.03.2004 for detailed medical examination, however, the petitioner failed to respond to the call of the respondents. It is submitted that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to come forward and putforth his case before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner remained uncontactable. However, the petitioner’s family members were staying in the residential address as furnished by the petitioner. 8. It is submitted that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to come forward and putforth his case before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner remained uncontactable. However, the petitioner’s family members were staying in the residential address as furnished by the petitioner. 8. It is also submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has addressed letter dated 07.11.2009 to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, wherein the petitioner sought reinstatement and putforth his case before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste. The respondents submit that the petitioner arrested by the CBI Police and remanded to judicial custody at Kanyakumari District, Tamilnadu while he was dismissed from service. 9. It is also submitted that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner were all issued by the Doctor based in Guntur. As such, the claim of the petitioner that he was treated at Chennai had no basis to even consider for the sake of assumption. 10. Heard both the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The petitioner was named as an Accused No.3 in FIR.No.8 of 2003 filed by CBI police, Visakhapatnam under Section 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 of IPC read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is said to have involved in the said offence along with other accused and caused wrongful loss to the bank to a tune of Rs.60,03,395/-. The petitioner was the then President of Andhra Bank BC, SC, ST and Minority Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited. The petitioner collected deposits from the employees and members and failed to repay the deposits on time. The depositors filed complaints which lead to the arrest of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner in the earlier round of litigation challenged the order of termination dated 18.10.2004 and the writ petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal. 13. The medical certificates filed along with the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner was suffering with Diabetes and Hyper Tension and all the medical certificates filed from 16.10.2003 to 01.12.2003 are issued by Dr.P.V.Hanumantha Rao of Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home. The said doctor is a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaec Surgeon. 13. The medical certificates filed along with the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner was suffering with Diabetes and Hyper Tension and all the medical certificates filed from 16.10.2003 to 01.12.2003 are issued by Dr.P.V.Hanumantha Rao of Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home. The said doctor is a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaec Surgeon. Whereas the fitness certificate was issued by Dr.L.Ravi Shankar on 22.08.2004 and the Medical Certificate for leave extension was issued by the said doctor on 16.12.2003. In the said certificate the doctor has opined that the petitioner is suffering from anxiety and depression occasionally and that he has considered the period of absence from duty for eight months with effect from 16.12.2003 is absolutely necessary for restoration of his health. The certificates filed by the petitioner are scarcely credible. The competent doctor for treating diabetes would be an Endocrinologist and a competent doctor for treating hyper tension would be a Cardiologist. The fill-in-the blanks formatted medical certificates issued by a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaec Surgeon for diabetic and hyper tension cannot be relied upon for any purposes. 14. That apart, the reason assigned by the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings after the delay of eight years is that the petitioner misplaced the original order under challenge is also not convincing. Nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the respondent and seek a fresh copy of the impugned proceedings at earlier point of time. There are ways for getting over the technical issues. It seems that the petitioner deliberately filed the writ petition belatedly after approaching the various other forums. 15. The writ petition is a devoid of merits. The petitioner cannot be granted any relief with the present set of facts and circumstances squarely indicating lapses beyond repair on part of the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.