K.Amarender Goud v. 1. The Greater Hyderabad tvlunioipal Qorporation

the affidavit filed in support ot the writ petition, the High Court nray be pleased to suspen{ the impugned Proeeedings beatilg No.5330/ZClAl(i\)/OP31GHMC/ 20'16-8 deed Oti Oil 2C,19 issued by the 1st respqndent and r;onqr:quently direct the respondents; to rerinstate the petitioner into service forthwith pe,nding disposal of the above wr t potilion, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVI MOHAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR sRt NARESH KUMAR GORTGE Counsel for the Respondents No.'! to 5: SRI MIDTTEARUN KUMAlt, S.C, FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respnrldent No.6: qP FOB MUNIQIPAL ADMINIS'I'RATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: OBDER C HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESI{ BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 5608 OF 2019 ORDER: Proceedings dated 08.O2.2O19 issued by the 1't respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') is impugned in this Writ Petition on that ground that it is i1lega1, arbitrary and violative of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991, Fundamental Rules and A.P. Leave Rules' A brief overview of petilioner's factual claim is as 2 foilorvs: Petitioner, who was employed as a Bill Coilector in Circle No.7 of the Corporation, received charge memo from the Deput-v Commissione r on 2l .O7 .20 1 1 alleging unauthonzed absence from duly for various periods lrotn 2l 07 '201 I to 31.10.2011, 12.11.20i1 to 15.11.20i1 and 23'11'2O11 to

25.01.2012, totaliing a period of 42 days. He is stated to have submitted explanation on 16.02-2012 attributing absence to health issues and requesting casual leave for the period from 1g.ll.2Ol1 to 2l.Ll.2Ol1 and he resumed duties on 22.71.201I and continued working thereafter, submitting a fitness certifrc ate oo 28.02.2012. 2 \Vhile so, petitioner was transferred to t,-:rr:1e No.2 and 1at,:r ti, Circle No.1, u'here he received anc t ret charge memo rla'.cii i2.03.2015 alleging unauthorized ab: tr ce from

23.11.2t)l' tt, '25.07.2013. In responsc. hc is stat,)d to have submitt':d c:planation on 27.O7.2075, denying the rrilt gatrons. However. thc Ist respondent appointed the 4th resl:orrdent as Inquiry, (lf irer, who, according to petitioner, rlid n:,t conduct oral in<1uir', n rr follou.ed due process prescriberl ur,rler Rule 20 of the l9!,r Rules. The 4fr respondent submiitei r( port on A3.O7.2t.)11' i;ased on which, the 1st responc:ent tr:r: secl the impugnr:d 1r.,1.11' dismissing him Irom service: lurLhe r it s sa1ary ',r.as dcriecl l-orn 29.06.2011 Lo 2014, ciespitc toc L..l).C. issucd by thc -+t ie'spondent on 31.1C.2013. In ihis -egard, he approache'rl . ne erstwhile Andhra Pradcsh Acir rir rstrative Tribunar i,,\ir-l'll in O.A. No. 2559 of 2014, r'esui in3 in an interiirr crr,,.r dated 71.O4.2O14, directing rcspcllcents to release :;aliL:-i t,ithin seven days, which was dul\r colr pl ed u,ith. Subscquertir . ().A. was ciosed on 27 .1I.2015 urfter r l-re intcrim orders t ei,: rnpiemented. According to petitioner, a I lranslers and leave z,p'rrovals were properly executed :rnd lre diC not absent fro r i rluties as alleged and his absence r lu: ing the ) periods 1n question was authorized or necessitated due to illness. It is also stated that petitioner while working at Circle 3, was transferred and posted to Central Zone on

22.06.201,1; he was relieved on 26.06.2011, where he was proceeded on leave due to ill heaith frorn 29.02.2072 to

31.03.2012 ard reported for duty on O2.O4.2O72 along lvith fitness certificate. Again he was transferred from Circie No.7 to Circle No.2 i.e. Uppal Circle on 051,,7-Or-rOr3 pursuant to the which, he was relieved and joined in [he transferred place on

25.O7.2013.

3. The lst respondent - Corporation denies the claims of petitioner, asserting that he had indeed absented himself from duties without authorization and disciplinary proceedings were initiated as per the CCA Rules, 199 1. However, he again absented himself from 23.1 1 .201 1 tilt 25.O7 .2013, u.hich is over a year, without providing any intimation to the authorities. He was given opportunities to explain the absence, including the periods frorn 27.O7.2011 to 31.1O.20i7 and 23.71.2011 to 25 .O7 .2fJ13 . The I st respondent denied that the inquiry process was flaq.'ed. According to them, the 4ft respondent I i I l 4 conductcd illLtiry in accordance with Rule 20 oi h:199 1 Ruies; petilrtrler attended inquiry sessions ancl signed attendancc ',he ets and his absence from 23 i 2 ) 1 1 to

25.O7 .2i 1ll l'as substantiated during the inquiry ' I : s contended that petitioner misrt-pr-esr rr t :d facts before the oourt, particularly regarding leale p'e-ioJs and n-rec1ical .erlr l Lt ates. The 5ff respondent addresse d a I( it( r to the Dircctor ot-()i nania Generai Hospital, Hyderabrrd. t: authent cir-' c l- medical certiltcates issued bv i''\ ) ir)L L'rrs' "r'rifr,' Dr. Naiafi l-i:'sitrn and Dr. Subbalakshmi regariling pct itioner's iilnr-'ss. P1-11 1i r5rpital, in its response dated 05 08.2i)i l stt''ted that pctltio rcr s name r.vas not found in out-paticnt it'qi ;ter and medical ce r'if c:rte issued was not in the prescri-c :d filrmat, implvinl: 11 ..:'i1r SSUed in the private capacity of 'h.: ' i| t -'rs' . f is respondent states that in 2-gil'-1111131 rvith G.O.MLs. I\o 1160, dated 04.09.2003, penalty f,rr unzLu thorized absencc it,r rore than one year is removal frc:-r sen'ice- Pet it',or-r' :r's :: Irsence frorrt 23.11.2O 1 1 to 25.A7 .20 1.] e xcceded one ),eErr, tl'us leading to imposition of penaltl :,s per the aforeme ntio 'rerl G.O. The APAT, in its order datecl I ',.o+.2O14, directed (-lllr\4c to reiease salary withrr'. sc.'cI days. Conseqireritii . the Sth respondent sanctioned 1-'a' c from 5 27 .O7 .2017 to 31 . 1O.201 1 as Earned Leave and from

23.lL.2oll to 28.02.2012 as Half Pay Leave. This demonstrates that salary claimed by petitioner for the specified periods was different from the periods for which punishment of removal was imposed. Petitioner tried to mislead the Court by conflating different periods of unauthorized absence, which had different treatment under the law. It is also stated that Rule 18(5) of the Fundamental Rules mandates that no member of the service can be granted leave for more than five years without the speciltc approval of qovernment, however, it is clarified that Rules do not necessitate rvaiting for Iive years to initiate disciplinary action against employees, who have absented lhemselves from duty for prolonged periods. Disciplinary action can be initiated against employees, who remain absent rvithout leave for extended periods, as per the CCA Ruies, 1991. The l.trespondent argues that petrtioner failed to obtain proper leave approval for the exLended period of absence fron 23.71.2O11 to 25.07.2073 and the absence was not authorized as per the statutory provisions. Moreover, petitioner himself admitted in the enquiry that he was hospitalized and no one was there in his family to submit his 6 f: leave applir:a iitrt or to inform the same to ihe I '-rl horiiies concerne<1. ''t" 1't respondent also points out that pt iitioner did nor ir"'r:.il the statutory appeal process arrc nstcad, approaclte,C l'.is Courl directly and the faft.rre' tc follow prescribt:rl o-o, edures renders Writ Petition liable for <lisrnissal.

4. ' rt hrs re piy, petitioner states that rlurlnq ' :nqgiry, the secci,ri r i t i-qc sheet q'as issued on '12'03.201.;. 'r I'a rcr. no charges 1\ (' -'- iiieci for the period from 2 3. 21i 1 to 2r.A7.2Oi,i ir tri no rvitness testificd regarding lis ai'sen'.eeism during 'ha lriod. Petitioner argues that. in thc :Lir: e nct: of such eviclt:ri r. lhe Enquiry Officer should not har''' r:cn':1uded that chi.;rg,cs '.r r.:r-3 p1s1rgd. Respondent acknou'1erlgeci par nrent of his salr;r i^,,r:-' '21.O7.2O11 to 2A.O2-2O12. hor"".-cr. il is assertec tirir . lnatters discussed in paragraph {3 of t le ccunter are nci ielei i rt to the charge sheet and the docrrmen . is sucd by the Suoe rir-,1-,'Bdent of Osmania General lJospl -;-ri dated O5.O8.2() 13 ,,,'rs not provided to petitioner nor mar-i:e<. during Lhe enr luil paragraph lC of the counter stating that petrtic n( r never Petitioner also disputes the a11e11a1 ions in adrnitterl tc being absent. Additionally, responde.n t .las not 7 denied the dciay in issuing petitioner's LPC, which resulted in non-payment of salary. He contends that these delays and omissions on the part of respondent had ied to unfair treatment and an unjust finding in the departmental enquiry.

5. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on be half of Sri Naresh Kumar Gorige, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, as a government servant, had right to apply for leave under the A.P. Leave Rules and submit medical certihcates for sudden illncss. It is argued that reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 260, dated O4.09.2OO3 was misplaced, as exccutive instructions cannot override statutory rules. The penalty of removal for unauthorized absence exceeding one year is claimed to be contrary to statutory rules. It is emphasized that interim direction from the Tribunal in 2014 ensured salary payments, which further substantiates the claim that petitioner did not abscond from duties. It is asserted that the inquiry conducted by the 4tt respondent did not comply rvith the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the 1991 Rules as no oral evidence was recorded and petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Additionaliy, the list of documents provided in Annexure-ll of 8 the charlge rrl()no was not communicated to petilion:r ' r iolating the manda:.r'' rcquirements of the Rules. Irinall', lcan-red Senior ('orr:-,:.51 argues that penalty of removai frort-r st n''icc is dispropr:rt'o:ltle to the charges framed and the f;rcts of t rc czlsc'

6. llt;rrd Sri Midde Arun Kumar, leirrncd S tanding Counsel fcrt' the Corporation and learned Governme :Lt Pleader for Mun,cicai lt c.lministration on behalf of the 6d re spc nt ent. 7 . Pe I ii,ioner laises several contention s rt ,garcling unauthr,rtzr::- :rirsencc, violation of the A P.C.S iCt-l'l,A) Ruies, and bre;1c:.'r r 1 F r.rnCamental Rules. AddrtionallS . ht i:h llletlge s inquiry llr.).iss, penalty imposed and seeks reil'rstat m :nt rvith consequ er Li: l :r,:ne fits. lt is argued lhat charge rner:ro il;sucd in 2O1l anci r; rbsequent charge memo in 2O15. r,rg:rr<iing unauthcri.z::i :tbsence, did not take into accoullt his le gititnate reasons ior zrbsence, including health issue s n'rcdical certihcei'e:; .rllc leave applicattons- The Corlloratl ln in its counler. m=i rrains that petitioner's absence ll'a s ulliLul horized, spanning sigi.rihcant periods and disciplinary procee-iir gs were initiatec a.s; p-:r the established procedure uncier il e A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rulc s , 199 1 . The respondent highlights re' itioner's failure to suLrnil leave applications for extended perLoCs despite 9 being aware of the Rules. It is contended that an inquiry was conducted, wherein petitioner participated and did not raise any objection regarding the absence of evidence or failure to provide an opport unify for cross-examination.

8. Here, it is to be seen that FR 18(5) mandates that no member of service shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceedrng fite years without the specific approval of government and no inference can be drawn from Lhese Rules that disciplinary action against a member of service cannot be taken unless he is continuously absent for more than five years without any leave. It is therefore, clarified that it is not at all necessary for the authority competent to wait for five years to initiate disciplinary action against the members of service for their absence from duty unauthorisedly.

9. Admittedly, petitloner has not submitted any leave application nor took prior permission from the competent aulhority lor the absent period with effect from 23. 1 1 .201 i to

25.O7.2O13, as accepted by him in the enquiry. Petitioner stated that he '"r,as hospitalized and no one was there in his family to submit leave application or to inform the same to the authorities concerned. Thereafter also, he remained absent to duty fro'- _r I I i0 0

23.11.2C1) :tt 25.07.2013. Though petitioner ciairnr hai he submitred lear e applications, from the counter alllclar it, i" is clear that ti', :r'rlthenticit-v* of medical certificatr:s prodrrced by petitionr-r \t rrs \rerified with the Superintendent of Cismania General lI:s;,ita1 and found thai" as per the hcspir-z: -ecords, petitione'r'si 1lilme was not there in the out-patien t I-e qis ter and the saic' ntirCicai certificate rn'as not issr:ed f;'oln t 1t sald hospilai 'lr tresicribed format. Therefore- er c rti -r \Yas conducLcd c: ir i, foilowing the procedure in prr,visi:rils of CCA Rules a:rd b' ioliorving the instructions issuec' in ( ' C l'ls'No' 260, darcc L,:, O).2023 and punishment of remorral ;i'-tn serice ( was impost.cl e s pelitioner's prolonged absence fron'i 2il. t 1.20i 1 to 25.0i'.2O l3 ,:onstitutes more than a year ,rf Ll.rruihorized absence rvhL ich justifies the penalty impose d in the in rpugned order. Th:r;'t'r, i,his Court is in agreernent rvitl.i )elitioner's argumerrts r,,,51a:ding non-communication of cert.lin' lo( r].lments and inabililr t ) cross-examine witnesses, it is to be st er that he had am ple ) i:rporLunity to present his case ancl di'l so at multiple staqes of the inquiry. Furthermore, petitione r ailcd to avail str:tu1.ot1 Appeal which renders Writ Petition unte:rabie. In the lighr of ',).ur abcve, lhe Wnt Petition is liable to bc ilis lissed. 11

10. costs. 1 1 . The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, the misceilaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// , SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REPISTRAR

1.,, sEcIoil6tFlcER 1 2 , One CC to SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE, Advocate [OPUCI ONE CC tO SRI IT/IDDE ARUN KUMAR, $.C fOT GHMC TOPUQ] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration. and Urbq4 Der,lelopment' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OU !l 4 Two CD Copies To, MP i HIGH COURT DATED:'tr 210212025 -,: - , :-.: ,.. : \- !,< ,(: c. I * ?1 r', ( ) a a ) / 'Jl3 -ii SI),1- C r{E '-a= o ORDER WP.No.5608 of 2019 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOL'T COSTS 7 AE. I 45 d/