ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the Award passed by the 1 st respondent in I.D.No.30 of 2003, dated08.12.2004. 2. Heard Sri. P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the materialavailable on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Badili Filler inMarch 1987 and promoted as Coal filler in 1993. The petitioner’s services were confirmed as a Coal filler by order, dated 17.09.1993. Thereafter, a dismissal order dated11.09.1997 was passed against the petitioner, with retrospective effect from 22.03.1996. b) During the year 1996, the petitioner fell seriously ill; as such, he applied for sanction of leave and took treatment in the Company’s Hospital, other private hospitals, and Government hospitals. The petitioner underwent treatment for jaundice, nasal allergy due to coal dust, severe body pains, etc. After recovery in the month of September 1997, when the petitioner reported to duty, he was served with a dismissal order, dated 11.09.1997. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 nd respondent, before passing the dismissal order, did not issue any chargesheet nor call for explanation, and conducted an ex parte enquiry. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 11.09.1997, the petitioner raised I.D.No.30 of 2003 before the 1 st respondent, raising several contentions, including the validity of the domestic enquiry. The 1 st respondent, by its Award, dated 16.10.2003, held that the Chargesheet and enquiry proceedings were not served to the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry proceedings were set aside, and I.D. was closed, directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after following the procedure. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27250 of 2003 before this Court, and the same was allowed on 28.01.2004 and remitted the matter back to the 1 st respondent for reconsideration. Upon such remittance, the matter was reconsidered by the 1 st respondent and, based on the evidence adduced on either side, dismissed the I.D.Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Upon such remittance, the matter was reconsidered by the 1 st respondent and, based on the evidence adduced on either side, dismissed the I.D.Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, except for the evidence adduced by the petitioner as WW-1, there is no other evidence on behalf of the 2 nd respondent to prove the allegation against the petitioner, much less by examining the relevant witnesses. The 1 st respondent had failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and arrived at a perverse conclusion. Therefore, the Award passed by the 1st respondent is untenable in law and fact and prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 7. The learned Government pleader appearing for respondent No.2 filed a counter and submits that the petitioner is an unauthorized absentee and his services were terminated by order dated 11.09.1997. The Award passed by the 1 st respondent in ID No.30 of 2003 is just and legal and is in accordance with the law. In the instant case, the 1st respondent, after going through the evidence led in by the petitioner and also on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, came to a clear and categorical finding that even after scanning the entire medical certificates marked as exhibits W.13, there is no proof of the physical condition and the restriction of movements of the petitioner. It is simply stated that the absence of the petitioner is necessary during that period. For what purpose the absence is necessary, is not mentioned. 8. The learned Government pleader further submits that it was also observed by the 1 st respondent that in the medical certificates produced by the petitioner nowhere is it stated that the movements of the petitioner were restricted and he was unable to move from bed. He is attending to all other duties, which he admitted in his evidence, which clearly goes to show that he had no intention to work with the respondent Company. The petitioner admitted in the cross- examination that he had never gone to the office from March 1996 to February 1997. He had never enquired his colleagues about his case in the respondent Company, and further, he did not file any leave application in the Court for that period. The petitioner admitted in the cross- examination that he had never gone to the office from March 1996 to February 1997. He had never enquired his colleagues about his case in the respondent Company, and further, he did not file any leave application in the Court for that period. Finally, based on evidence produced by both parties, the 1st respondent dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. 9. The learned Government pleader further submits that the 1 st respondent, by its Award dated 08.12.2004, dismissed the petitioner’s claim, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Company w.e.f. 30.03.1987, and his services were regularized as a coal filler w.e.f. 01.03.1993. He had actually put in only 76 musters during the calendar year 1995 and 6 musters only during the calendar year 1996. As such, the contention of the petitioner that he had put in a good record of service till his dismissal from the services of the Company is denied. 10. The learned Government pleader further submits that the petitioner was chargesheeted for absenting continuously from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause w.e.f. 22.03.1996. As the petitioner was not attending the duties for a long time, the chargesheet was sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due to his home address as per the address given by the petitioner in the respondent Company's records, but it was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. To give him a fair opportunity, the chargesheet-cum-enquiry notice was published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Newspaper, dated 11.03.1997, advising him to submit his written explanation and to attend the enquiry on 01.04.1997 at 3.30 p.m. in the office of the Superintendent of Mines, Srirampur-II Incline. The petitioner had neither submitted any explanation nor appeared in the enquiry. As such, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. 11. The learned Government pleader further submits that the copy of the enquiry report, along with the proceedings of the enquiry, was sent to his home address through Registered Post with acknowledgement due, allowing him to make representation if any against findings contained in enquiry report within seven days of the receipt of the letter and the same was returned undelivered by the Postal Authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, a paper publication was given in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily Newspaper, dated 25.06.1997, stating that the copy of the enquiry report was made available at the office of SRP-2 Incline and the petitioner may peruse the same in person within one week from the date of publication, to submit his representation, if any. But the petitioner did not turn up to take the copy of the enquiry report, nor did he submit any representation. The respondent Company has gone through its record and found that there are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view. As the charges have been proved, the respondent Company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from the Company‘s services w.e.f. 22-03-1996. In view of the above submissions, this writ petition is devoid of merit and hence liable to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 12. The main contention of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent, before passing the dismissal order did not issue any chargesheet nor called for explanation, and conducted an ex parte enquiry and that except his evidence as WW-1, there is no other evidence on behalf of the 2nd respondent to prove the allegation against him, much less, by examining the relevant witnesses. The 1 st respondent had failed to appreciate the contentions raised by him and arrived at a perverse conclusion. 13. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that that the copy of the enquiry report along with the proceedings of the enquiry was sent to petitioner’s residential address through Registered Post with acknowledgement due, allowing to make representation, if any, against findings contained in enquiry report within seven days of the receipt of the letter. But the same was returned undelivered by the Postal Authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, a paper publication was given in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily Newspaper, dated 25.06.1997, stating that the copy of the enquiry report was made available at the office of SRP-2 Incline and the petitioner may peruse the same in person within one week from the date of publication, to submit his representation, if any. But the petitioner did not turn up for taking the copy of the enquiry report, nor did he submit any representation. 14. But the petitioner did not turn up for taking the copy of the enquiry report, nor did he submit any representation. 14. The learned Government Pleader vehemently arguedthat unauthorized absenteeism need not be condoned, and in support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 1 SCC 302 , wherein the Court, while dealing with the issue of unauthorized absenteeism, held as follows: “……. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observations that "His absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge". Even otherwise, on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge" especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal.” 15. In the case at hand, also, as contended by the respondent No.2, the petitioner is an unauthorized absentee. Though the enquiry report was sent to his given address, it was returned un-served. As such, the respondent No.2 was forced to give publication in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily Newspaper, dated 25.06.1997, that the copy of the enquiry report was made available at the office of SRP-2 Incline and the petitioner may peruse the same in person within one week from the date of publication, to submit his representation, if any. But the petitioner did not turn up for taking the copy of the enquiry report, nor did he submit any representation. 16. For the foregoing discussions, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry, as such, the delay tactics, unauthorized absent and negligence on the part of the petitioner and considering the rationale laid down in the above judgment, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out to interfere with the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.30 of 2003, dated 08.12.2004. As such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.