The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO f WRIT PETITION No. 4587 of 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings of the 2na respondent vide proceedings No.704lT4 12022, dated

18.11.2023, as confirmed by the 3'd respondent by his order vide C.No.AS/03/ 1553/PR/0812022 (1407), dated 18.1O.2022 vide C.O.O.No. 105612022, in removing the services of the petitioner as PC.170, Muttaram PS, Peddapalli District, as illegal.

2. Heard Sri Kadire Krishnaiah, learned counsel lor the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected as a police constable and was appointed on 10.08.1990. Ever since of the date of his appointment, the petitioner has rendered his services to the department ln va_rlous places as a Police Constable and 2 received awa_rds and rewards for his outstan, ling services. On a term wise basis, he was allotted for Tar I lnadu Election bundobust duty, ald the same was intimatt c to him over a phone call on 23.O4.2O2I at 07.45 hours On 25.03.2027, petitioner was handed over the counter hle sLp of summons while he was working as a police Constabl at pothkapalli Police Station. Commissionerate of police, Ramagundam. After completion of the summons duty, he w.Lr; affected with severe hypertension and chest pain suddenly Subsequently, he sent a message through WhatsApp to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkap:r1li. 4 Learned c()unsel for the petitioner furthe - submits that the petitioner immediately rushed to the Hospital for treatment on 26.03.2021. The Medica_l Of cer, TSWP, Godhavarikani. advised the petitioner to take a. least 10 days bed rest due to CAD, Hypertension emergen( 1, with effect from 26.03.2021 to O5.O4.2021, and he certifie I the same by issuing "Form-A. , After hearing this fact, I L e petitioner informed the Sub Inspector of police abour his health ) 3 i condition and requested that a Sick Passport be issued duly enclosing the out Patient Card and a doctor's certihcate. Due to these reasons, the Petitioner was unable to attend duties frorn 26.03.2021 to 7O.O4.2O21.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner went to the P.S. on ll.O4.2o2l to join in his duties and also requested the Sub Inspector, Pothkapalli, to permit him to join duties. But, the Sub Inspector did not consider his request. Again, the petitioner went to attend the duties on the next day i.e., 12.O4.2O2 1 and requested the Sub Inspector to permit him to join duties, but the same was rejected. The Petitioner had been waiting for the dulies from 9:OO.A.M to S:OO,P.M., but the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothakapalli, did not take him into the duties on the next day either.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said circumstances, the petitioner went to the officer of the Inspector of Police to meet him personally to make a representation to take him into the duties on 14.O4.2O2 1, but 4 the Inspector of Police was not available in tl e office on that day. As such, ht: informed the Inspector of po roe over the cell phone about rvltat had happened. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner furth,.r submits that Iater, the petitioner again fell sick severel ,,,. immediately rushed to the IJospital and on test, detected :OVID positive on 16.04.2021. Immediately, he rushed to .,\ryan Care & Cure Hospital Karimnagar, and after giving lirst aid, they refused to admit the petitioner as the petitio..rer,s condition was critical arld referred to AIMS. As such, tht tetitioner was admitted to I.C.U. in Sigma Hospital, Godlrirvarikani, for treatment of COVID and remained there as an rrpatient up to

02.o5.202t.

8. l,earned counsel for the petitioner furthe. submits that on 24.O5.2O27. the petitioner was tested COVII negative, and the test reports were given on 31.05.202 1. The jlme was al.so informed to tll: higher authorities. The Cornmissioner of Police, Ramagundam, who found the petitiont r admitted in the Hospital, had granted and paid Rs.l,OO,OO( ,,, as medical 5 ., reimbursement bill vide cheque No.497lg2. On l2.OB.2O2l, the petitioner made a representation requesting the Commissioner of police, Ramagundam, to take him to take into duties a,,d arso exprained the behaviour of the concerned Sub Inspector. Subsequently, the Commissioner of police, Ramagundam, considering the petitioner,s request, issued an order on the same day, vide issued C,No. \95 /2195 / A4 / deseftion/2027, C.O.O.No .888 /2021 to take the petitioner on duty from desertion and, thereby, the petitioner joined in his duties again. 9' Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that later, the Commissioner of police, Ramagundam, issued desertion proceedings vide C.N.No. lg1 / 2LgS / A4 / LR / desertion/202 1, C.O.No.7Ot /2O2t, dated 28.O5.2O2I by declaring the petitioner has deserted w.e.f. 2a.O3.2O21 F.N. as per order No.184/A.p.p.M part-1, based on the report of Sub Inspector of police, Kamanpur, which is not relevant and is illegal. 6

10. Learned c:ounsei for the petitioner furth _-: submits that the petitioner was illegaily declared as leserter from 28.O3.2O2I to 17.O8.2O2 1. Based on the irnl ri1gn66 order of the desertion vide C.N.No. 195/2195 lA4 ldese r ionlLR/2O2\, C.O.O. No.88B/202 1, dated 12.Oa.2O2t, the o,-rrl enquiry was conducted on 29.O7 .2022 vide, C.N.No.O4 /pR/A.C.p.Trfl

2022. The A.C,P. Trafhc, Ramagr.rndam, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 22.04.2022, ., ile A5/03/1553/PR/0.812022 issued by the Cr rrmissioner of C.N.No. Police Ramagundam. Additionalty, the Inspe_-tor of police, Legal Cell, Ramagundam, was appointed as lre presenting Ofhcer to inquire into the charges against lre petitioner, which are illegal arrd contrar1i to law.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthe. submits that the Commissioner of police framed the artr :[e of charge against the petitioner, stating that while the >,:titioner was working at Pothakapalli p.S., he was abs,,nt from his legitimate duties without taking any leave or per rrission w.e.f.

24.03.2021 F.N. and continued to be absent for rrore than 21 ---../ * - 7 days unauthorizedly. Therefore, the Sub Inspector of Police, I Pothakapalli PS, has submitted a report vide Lr.C.No.66l55 /2021, dated 02.O5.2021 against the Charged Ofhcer/petitioner that he absented from his legitimate duties without leave or permission lor more than (2 1) days and he may be declared as "deserter".

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Pothakapalli PS, the Charged Ofhcer/petitioner declared as deserter w.e.f.

28.O3.2021 F.N. as per order dated 28.05.2021. Later, he was taken on duty by the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, where he reported to dut5z on 18.08.202 1 at Pothkapalli P.S., which is not correct. The charged ofhcer was not declared as deserter w.e.f. 28.03.202 1 F.N. as alleged as per the report of Sub Inspector Police, Pothkapalli Police Station. The Charged ofhcer/Petitioner was declared as a deserter as per the report of Sub Inspector TSPM Police, Kamanpur, vide proceedings in C.N.No.794 /2194 / A4lLR/Desertton/2O2I C.O.No.70 1 of 2027, dated 28.05.2021 issued by the Commissioner of 8 Police, Ramagundam, who is no way concc tted of alieged unauthorized absent of the petitioner w.e.f. . ii 03 2021 FN, because the petitioner was working at that tir r,' in the Police Station, Pothkapalli.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner furth< r submits that in the oral enquiry held against the petitioner )r 29.07.2022, the petitioner submitted his oral explanation a r.rut his health issues, including the effect of COVID-19 arrd rvas unable to attend to his duties. Documentaql evide'r.:e was also submitted before the authorities by the peti i,rner, but the Enquiry Officer did not consider the hea-lth 1r'ounds of the petitioner. The trnquiry Ofhcer submitted in hi, report that as the allegations levelled against the charged ol r:er/petitioner have exhibited gross misconduct in absen ing from his legitimate duties for more than (2 1) days w.r f 2a.o3.20t7 F.N. without leave or permission from the Sr perior ofhcers. Thereby, the petitioner becoming deserter w.r.-. 28.03.2021 FN as per order No.184 of TSPM, he therebyvir l:rted Rule 3 of TSCS (conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, the cha-11e against the -7 9 T charged officer/petitioner is to stand "Proved Beyond Doubt" in the light of the witness's statement, is illegal

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the 3.d respondent awarded the punishment of "Removal from service and the absent period with effect lrom 28.03.2011 to 14.08.2021 treated as L.W.P. (leave wrthout pay), is illegal. Though the petitioner suffered from severe chest pain, COVID-19 positive and in spite of financial assistance granted by the 3.d respondent for his medical treatment, the 3'd respondent awarded the punishment as stated supra. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside in the eye of law. Therefore, prayed to a-llow the Writ Petition.

15. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed counter stating that the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, submitted a report to respondent No.3 against petitioner vide his letter dated O2.O5.2O2 1 stating that the petitioner was issued a passport for summons duty in Cr.No.22/2O2O u/s 10 I .l\ 498(A) IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition 1ct on the llle of Pothkapa,lli Police Station on 23.O3.2021 at 0710 hrs.

16. It is further stated that later on, turn v.ise basis, the petltloner was drafted for Tamil Nadu Elec.ion bandobust duty and the same was informed to the petitir,rrt:r over phone on 24.O3.2O21 at 0745 hours. However, on l'ii.O3.2O2l, the petitioner handed over the counterfoil slip ol t ie summons to Sri A. Thirupathi, PC 626, Cowrt Constable, in t:ntionally. On the same day, at 12.15 hours, he posted a whrlsApp message from his Ceil Phone number 79O1727O2;t to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapa-lli, informing hinL that he could not perform Election duty in Tarnil Nadu as h: was suflering from heart problem.

17. It is further stated that on 27.03.2021 . the petitioner posted another whatsApp message to avoid Brtndobust du[r artd later, posted a picture message of Form-t having stamp of Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, by mentionirrll that he was suffering from health problem and was in neec rf 10 days for restoration of his health. On 12.O4.2021. rnorning the 11 5 petitioner went to Pothkapalli Police Station, while the Sub Inspector of Police was preparing a memo, asked the petitioner to submit his explanation lor his unauth ortzed absence. However, the petitioner stayed there for Iive minutes and went away without obtaining permission.

18. It is further stated that on 14.04.2021 at about 1130 hours, the petitioner again went to Pothkapplli Police Station and stayed there for 15 minutes and went away in a most negligent manner without submitting any explanation. Since the petitioner was absent from his legilimate duties w.e.f. 2A.O3.2O2I without leave or permission for more than (2 1) days, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, requested respondent No.3 to declare the petitioner as deserter. As per Order No.184 of the Telangana State Police Manual, whoever remains absent unauthorizedly without prior permission or leave for 21 days, has to be declared as deserter.

19. It is further stated that, as per the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli Police Station, the respondent No. 3 declared the petitioner as a deserter w.e.f. 28.03.2021 I*+ x 72 FN, as per Order, dated: 2g.O5.2O21. Later, ilrt: petitioner was taken on duty by respondent No.3, wher,. the petitioner reported for duty on 18.Og.2021 at pothikapal r police Station

20. It is further stated that respondent Nt.3 framed the article of charge under Rule 20 of Telangal r Civil Services (CC&A Rules 199 1 (Telalgana Adaption or1:r 20 16) and issued to petitioner vide C.No. 03/15S3/A;/pR /OE/2022 dated 26.02.2022 for his unauthorized absen lrom duty for more than 21 clays. Having acknowledged thr charge memo on 29.o3.2o22, t],e petitioner has not submit e d his written statement of defence. Hence, the respondent N I 3 appointed the ACP, Trafhc. Ramagundam as the Inquiring Authority to conduct the Oral Enquiry against the petitior e r vide C.No. As /03 /1ss3/pR/oE /2022, dated. 22.O4.2022. 2I. It is further: stated that the Inquiry I trthority has conducted a regglar enquiry into charges lgainst the petitioner and submitted minutes to responder 1 No.3, duly holding charges "pror rC" S C. No. 04 / pR / ACp.Trf / 2022, d,ate d, 29 .O7 .2022 ,,, glreeing with * W ,/ 13 the hndings of the Inquiry Authorit5r, respondent No.3 had suppiied a copy of the minute drawn by the Inquiry Authority to the petitioner, calling for his further representation, if any, vide Memo A5/03/1553/PR/OE/2022, C.No. dated

02.O8.2O22. The petitioner acknowledged the minute copy on 1O.O8.2O22, but he has failed to submit his further representation even though reasonable opportunity was afforded to him.

22. It is further stated that the 3.,1 respondent has gone through the hndings of the Inquiry Authority and other connected records carefully. Petitioner intentionally avoided the bandobust duty in Tamil Nadu and sent text message in whatsApp to the Sub Inspector of Police, pothkapalli, informing that he was suffering from ill-hea_lth and need 10 days rest. When the Sub Inspector, Pothakapatly, advised him to come to the Police Station and obtain leave, but disobeying the instructions of the Sub Inspector, the charged officer/petitioner absented himself from dut5r followed by , s \ 74 desertion from the force, which shows gros,, dereliction of his legitimate du ties.

23. It is further stated that as per pet tioner,s previous service recorcl, he has deserted from the forc r for (7) times, for which, he was awarded 7_ppls for one year u,ithout effect on future increments and pension, 1_ppl for tvo years without effect on luture increments and pension, ard 2_Censures in various occasjons in the service. During th, year 2021, the petitioner dese,rted from the force (4) times. ilr:nce, it is clear that the petitioner has frequently absented hrnrseif from du$ unauthorizedry for days together showing trlt he had no interest in discharging the duties as entrusted t,y his superior officers, and his habitual absence from duty u. l reflect poorly arnong the police in the department. 24. Hence, the 3.d respondent awarded the ; rnishment of "Remova-l from service" to the petitioner arr< the absence period with effect from 2g.O3.2027 to 17.Og.2O2l is treated as L.W.P.(Leave without pay) c.No'A5/03/ 1553/pR/o E/ 2022(1407), dated 1 t to.2022. As proceedings 15 such, the proceedings of the 2.d respondent, vide proceedings No.7 04 / T4 I 2022, dated 18. | 1.2023, holds good. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

25. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 1O.08.1990. While working as a constable in the Department, he got Awards and Rewards for his services. Petitioner completed his service for more than 32 years in the Department. On Ia.tO.2O22, the impugned order was passed, removing the petitioner from service. The absent period of the petitioner from 28.03.2021 to 17.O8.2O21 was treated as leave without pay (L.W.P.).

26. The main contention of the respondents in the removal order is that, the petitioner deserted from the lorce for seven times, for which, he was awarded seven (07) PPIs for one year without effect on future increments and pension, (O1) ppl for two years without effect on future increments and pension, and two censures on different occasions in the service Furthermore, the respondents' contention in the removal 16 order is that gross misconduct occurred in a r,;enting oneself from legitimate' duties for more th.an 21 day ;. effective from

28.03.2021 to 17.O8.2O21.

27. The petitioner contended that in the or tl enquiry held against him on 29.O7 .2022, he submitted an , rr a1 explanation about his health issues, including the effect o' ,IOVID-19 and was unable to attend to his duties. 'l c that effect, documentar5r evidence was aiso submitt, rl before the authorities, but the Enquiry Ofhcer did nct consider the health grounds of the petitioner. But, the fa< t remains that petitioner suflered from ill-hea-lth; twice, ht informed the authorities of his health condition through WhatsApp on 27 .O3.2O21 and 14.04.2021

28. The petitioner contended that after CO.zlD effect, the authorities reimbursed the medical expenses o ts.1,O0,O0O/- vide letter dated 21.1O.2O21, during the trratment period

24.04.2021 to 02.O5.2021. As per the OM dat:r1 07.06.2021., issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Per sonnel, Public Grievances & F'ensions, whenever a Governr t,-.nt employee slrffers from COVID, the treatment of period of absence shall ! 77 be treated as follows: Sl.No Situation Treatment of the period of absence o2 When Government servart himself COVID positive, ald is in home isolation and has also been hospitalized. (ii) (r) Shalt be granted Commuted Leave/SCL/EL for a period up to 2O days starting from t]-e time having tested COVID positive, if period of quaralLine/discharge from hospital falls within 2O days, as per Sl.No.1 above. In case of hospitatization beyond the 2O1h day from his testing COVID positive, he shall be grarrted Commuted l-eave, on production of documentary proof of hospitalizatron. If, however, after discharge from the hospital, the Government servant is required to remain at home for post-COVID recovery, he may be granted liave of any kind due and admissible to him, with the approval of the concerned Competent Authority, as per the CCS (teave) Rules, 1972. It is only when the Commuted Leave is not available to the credit of the Government servant that SCL of 15 days or EL or EOL shall be considered. (iil)

29. The petitioner a,lso made a representation on 12.OS.2O2L before the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam. In the said representation, he stated that he suffered from chest pain and was treated by the Government Hospital, Godavari Khani. The respondent authorities, a-fter conducting the enquiry, 18 declared the petitioner as a deserter from 28.03.2027 to

17.O8.2O21. The petitioner's contention is that, the respondent authorities when making that cl.::ision did not consider his health condition as evid, nced by the documentary evidence.

30. The petitioner contended that he went t r Poiice Station on 11.04.202 1 to join duties and requested u.i h folded hands to accept his request to join the duty, but thr: iruthorities did not consider his request. The next day .(). 12.04.2021 requested the SI to take him on duty, but he viLs reluctant to do so despite the petitioner waited from 9 a.m. .() 5 p.m.

31. The respondent authorities, on the one hand, granted medical reimbursement of Rs. 1,00,OOO f - to tb: petitioner for having suffered from ill-health, ald on the oth,.r hand, taking into consideration the absence period of the pt titioner during the said ill-health, removed the petitioner frc nr the service, which is untenable in law. It is a,lso pertinent t I mention here that, according to the petitioner's previous ser r ce record, he has deserted from the force for 7 times, for vhich, he was i I 19 { awarded 7-PPIs for one year, without arry effect on future increments and pension. During the year 2021, t}:.e petitioner hasdeserted.fromtheforce4times.Hence,itisclearthatthe petitioner has frequently absented himself from duty without authorization, showing that he had no interest in discharging his d.ulies. It is not in dispute that the petitioner served the department for nearly 30 years and received awards and rewards for his outstanding services' Hence, the action of the respondent authorities in removing the petitioner from service as a deserter is disproportionate to the alleged absent period of the petitioner.

32. Therefore, the proceedings of the 2d respondent dated laJl.2)23 as conhrmed by the 3'd respondent by his order dated 18. lO.2O22 in removing the services of the petitioner as PC.\7O, Muttaram PS, Peddapalli District are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and impose lesser punishment other than removal from service in accordance with law within a 20 t period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy this order

33. With the above direction, the Writ petitir rr is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pend rg sha,ll stand closed. To, SD/"A. SRINIVASA REDDY A{;SiISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// rsib TION OFFICER T.S.,Hyderabad. Hyderabad, T.S.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariz t Buildings, 2 The Director Generar of porice, For the state of rerangana, Jubiree Hiils, 3. The Commissioner of police, Ramagundam police Cor -r niserate, T.S. 4. The Addt Director Generar of porice"North zone ieran. an;si;i;, Hyieranao _ IAC of DIG of Police Karimnagar, T.S. I 9n" CC to SRt. KADtRt K.R|SHNA|AU, Advocate [OpJC] 6 Jwo CCs to GoVERNMENT PLEADER nOn Srdvic r,-s 1uoN/lrl, Hisr, Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabaO IOUTI 7. fwo CD Copies BM BS + ,t * t + i * {1. t '; a ; I l i c i t a t i HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 - ':- . :'. .4,' <:.' I I ' ,1 0[r 2925 -. ? ./: 1r 'I -./' '\'.. ..-.---:---' ORDER WP.No.4587 of Z0Z4 .. 'li. '\..i- DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/, a