IN THE HIGH COURT FOR v. Review petition of petitio

Judgment

1. Z

4. i#jd",;i;{,H5;g",;fl [i,d;;;;+,,,f_,,i,",,trftg:3;:;fi ?r ..PETITIONER jJ, jgji?l?eL:,","j:,3g;;g1'tH"," ;lEff j:;:l:A,1"1&,:?,s The Director General of po The Inspector Generar o, o"""' The Deputy rnspector o"n.o""u' ll"::;,rr,*{r,:ii.s**ilffi #ff '::ffiT,,XI j1,,""", Telangana' saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004, North Zone' Hyderabad "'RESPONDENTS petition under Articie ))R n+ ts^ n .. writ of Mandarr. 0".,j:1"j ;,J,'.T,il:i:j:*J: [?jJ:T;,il:*,.f nda prayins,ha, n ,he ordirectron, ,";" r#,J;J:l ;:'#:'":; ;i:;:;n;":*i:"::;;"ffit#;;T I G.O.Ms.No.260, General (ser'c) Department, dated. 04.og.2oo3) and action of respondentsAdministration 1 to 4 n not considering Appeal Petition, Revision and Review petition of petitio asainst the principres or naturar justice ". ,n" ,*r"il TIJ',];rff: ::t grounds through resistered post to the respondents :::,TJ::1H":"::1.: not willful and it does not come under misconduct as per Telangana State CCS "no ':l "'" ]1" ::::;ili":;:Jilff::"T: (conduct) Rures, 1e64 respondents to reinstate the petitioner into servlce wl to which he is eligible IA NO :1 oF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to rmpugned proceedings in suspend the operation of C.No.0B/0E/PR/2014lD O No 1123t2O14 dated 03 122014 issued by 5th respondent and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith' pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUNDRATI RAMAN GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No'5: SPL GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER P N f I

Heard Sri G. Raman Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, learned Government pleader for Services-f appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and tearned Special Government pleader for Home appearing on behatf of Respondent No.5. 2.7 e h dt s h a era n er "To issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5U, Respondent in issuing impugned order of removal oF petitioner From service vide proceedings in C.No.0 B/OE/IR/20142O O fV,".f f Z:) 2014 dated 03.12.2014 in terms . of G.O.Ms.No.260. General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 04.09.2003) and action of respondents 1 to 4 in not consideration Appeal petition, Revision and Review Petition of petrtioner as arbitrary, illegal and against the principies of natural justice as the petitioner has submitted leave application on medical grounds through registered post to the respondents and the petitioner's action is not wilful and it does not come under misconduct as per Telangana State CCS 2 wP 15531 2023 SN, ] (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petltioner rnto service with all consequential benefits to which he is eligible and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circu msta nces of the case."

3. The caseo t t he oetitroner in brief as De r ts made b th n affidavit fil the oetitioner in suooort of the Dresent writ Detition, is as follows: (i) The petitioner is a physically handicapped person with B1olo of orthopedic disability. The petitioner was selected and appointed as lunior Assistant vide proceedings oF the District Collector and Nodal Authority, Adilabad vide proc. No. A4/486/2007-75, dated 21.05.2008 under cor|passionate grounds due to death of petitioner,s father late Sri J. Bhomaiah, while working as Superintendent in Forest Department. Thereafter, the petitioner joined into service as Junior Assistant on 21.06.2008 in the oflrice of the fifth respondent and the petitioner's probation was declared on 07.06.201 1 AN vide procs.No.1433/A3/Estt/2008-11 dated 08.06.2011 under Rute 1B (a) ofAP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. I 3 wP 15537 2023 sN,l (ii) The petitioner had sent an application dated 15.02.2013 through registered post For sanction of sick leave with efFect from 05.02.2013 to 22.02.2013 on the ground of severe low back pain. kyposcolisis with an intention to submit the Medical Certificate at the time of reporting for duty. Meanwhile, the 5rh respondent issued an Article of Charges vide Ref. No.0B/OElpR/ 2014 dated 06.05.2014 under Rule 20 of CCA Rutes, 1991. The sa me ts extracted Telangana State re UN r: ,,...the said Sri Jannarapu praveen Kumar, Junior Assistant of 73th Bn Apsp (IR), Gudipet, Aditabad District has exhibited gross negtect of duty, .indisciptine and irresponsibte behavior t fro m 2 3. 0 2. 2 0, 3 *,, n: : ::r"':: r:: from his superiors and not turned up for duty tit) qate. :::: :::r::;:: ,s of Sri Jannarapu praveen Kumar, lunior Assistant of 73th Bn ApSp (IR), Gudipet, Aditabad District has sent an application dated 15.02.2013 through registered post for sanction of sick leave with effect from O5.o2.2013 to 22.02.2013 due to sev h a s n o t e n c r o s e d r r, "',ri "r : : :;' ; : ; :: application. However, he was due to back to report with medical fitness certificate for duty on 23.03.2013, but he "'oi!r,t ::: ;:: 4 wP 1551/ 2023 SN,] did not turn up for duty, not informed his whereabouts to the office and became absent at his own accord ' Absenting from duty for more than year at his own accord cannot be tolerated in disciplined force' It clearly shows his gross dereliction towards his legitimate duties. Thus, he violated Rule 3 of AP Civil Services Conduct Rules' 1964"' (iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that 5th respondent issued a Memo vide C'No'08/OE/PR/2014 dated 27.05.2014 directing the petitioner to submit written statement of defense. Meanwhile the 5th respondent vide his proceedings dated 26.06.2014 in Ref.No'C'No'08/OE/PR/2014 has appointed Sri P.Krishna Prasad, Asst. Commandant, 13" Ban'' as Enquiry officerandK.KiranKumar,ReserveSublnspectoroftheUnitaS Presenting Officer on behalf of prosecution' (iv) The said Enquiry Officer vide Pl"mo dated 02.07.2014 instructed the petitioner to attend the oral enquiry on 10.07.2014 and LL.07.2014 at 11'00 hours at 13th Bn' headquarters. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry' analyzed assessment of evidence and submitted his Enquiry Report with the following findings:- Findinos:- 5 wP_ 15537_2023 SN,] "During the course o oral evidence and on the basis of documentary uno or,t u''ounte produced in the case before me and in ,,uu' charged officer ,r, '* ot the reasons given above the J'Praveen Kumar' Junior Assistant acknowledged the ;; ::;:n:;i r::: I^ TJ'., ti,"1'"!;|,,1! I; oral enquiry on the said dates for 3 times and he OiO nc" oFricers, rinarry o.ar en;i.hlJ::""".,::: :: H #:Tl"J and the Charged Officer is not interesteO in fris ioO. Hence ex-parte O.E. is conducted. sri J' Praveen Kumar, Junior ' (IR)' Gudipet is proved beyond Hence, charge leveled a Assistant, 13th Bn, ,ra,'u'ntt any reasonable doubt,,. (v) Thereafter the 5th respondent issued a Memo dated 31.70.2014 in Ref.No.C.N o/OB/pR/2014 directed therpetitioner to submit final written statement of defense. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defense dated 07.tL.2014 whereby stating the factual reasons that the petitioner was hospitalized due to low back pain and the petitioner's aged mother also hospitalized due ro iil health, hence, the petitioner requested the respondents not to take any drastic action against the petitioner. However, the 5th respondent issued impugned order of removal of petitioner from service vide I \ \ 6 wP 15517 2021 sN 'l proceedings in C'No'08/OE/PR/2014/D'O'NolL23l2Ol4 03.12.2014 in terms of G'O'Ms'No'260' General Administration (ser.c) Department dated 04'09'2003' Aggrieved by the action of the 5th respondent' the petitioner submitted Appeal' Revision and Review petitions' but the same had been rejected' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition' 4 PE U E H REco RD. (A) T he ordert m o u n bv the 5 tn re DOn dent 5 hereu nder: d to the DEtitio ne d o .1 2. 20 t4 ss ued is extra cted r, o o I R G oET I I T T1 T B P ES EN .c AKRA H RA RAo. .N .0 o P 01 O.Nq 1123 2014 r..\ D te: - 0 72 20t4. Sub:-13th Bn. TSSP (IR), Gudipet- Departmental --- oioceeOinqs aqainst Sri Jannarapu Praveen kr;;;. tr]nssi. of this unit - Final orders issued- Regarding. Ref:- 1. This office Memorandum of charge of even No. dated:06.05.2014:

2. This office proceedings of even No dated

26.06.2074 appointing Sri P'K' Prasad' Asst Commandant of this unit as Enquiry Officer

3. Minutes in C.NO. 01/Asst.CMTlOE/PR/2014, dated: 22.O8.2O74 drawn by drawn by the Enquiry Officer Sri p.Krishna prasad, Asst. Commandant oF this unit. 7 wP 15537 -2023 SN, ]

4. This

11.09.2014. ^office memo of even No. dated: S lgqt.w11tlen sratemenr of defense dared: U /.77.2074 of Sri Jannar Jr.Asst. .apu praveen Kumar, ORDER: Sri Jannarapu praveen Kumar, lr. Asst of this unit was harge in Annexure_|, II under Rule 20 of the issued with a memorandum of article of c & III vide this office reference 1,r cited APCS (CC&A) Rutes. 1991 for the following delinquency "For exhibited gross neglect of irresponsible behavior in absenting 23.O2.2Ot3 without any leave or prior superiors and not turned up for duty till date,,. duty, indiscipline and from duties w.e. f. permission from his Having acknowledged the Article ll & III on 14.05.2014, he has not statement of defense. of charge in Annexure I, submitted his written Sri p.Krishna prasad, Asst. Commandant oF this unit was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct regulan oral enquiry against the charged officer into the allegations fuuLf"a uguin., him vide reference 2"d cited. During the regular enquiry, the charged officer has not bothered to attend the O.E and not informed his whereabouts to his superior officers and finally submitted his findings through minutes holding the allegations mentioned in Article as proved vide reference 3,, cited. Agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, a copy of minute was supplied to the charged officer vide reference 4rh cited. Having acknowledged the minutes on 24.O9.2Ot4. he has submitted his final written statement of defense vide reference 5th cited. l I I l I I I I I wP 15537 )O23 SN,,} In his final written statement of defense, the charged officer has stated that unfortunately he became absent from duties w.e.f. 05.02.2013 due to Kyposocolisis problems and riot turned up for duty on 23.O2.2O73 with MFC. Though he received several memos regarding OE, he did not submit his explanations. He added that, he became absent at his accord and his mother's health is not good. He will report for duty soon and requested to not to take drastic action against him. I have carefully gone through the O.E file of Sri Jannarapu Praveen Kumar, lr. Asst., the Charged Officer became absent for duty at his own accord and submitted his explanation on 12- ll-2014 and in his explanation he admitted his guilty and he has not attended to the D.E and not turned up for duty so far in spite of reasonable opportunities extended to him. It clearly shows his disinterest to continue in T.S.S.P., Organization in terms orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.260, General Administration (Ser.C) department, dated 04.09.2003, he has completed one year period of absence to duty. I apreeing with findings of Enquiry Officer and awarded him . with the p u n ish ment of "REMOVAL FROM SERVICE" with immediate effect from the date of receipt of this order. The absent period of w.e.f. 05.02.2013 to till date treated as NOT ON DUTY. Certified that the procedure laid down in the A.p.C.S. (CC&A) rules, 1991 have been following strictly conducting and disposal of the O.E. COMMANDANT, 13rH BN. TSSP (rR)- f I l (B) P rs xtr 9 wP 1553/ 202) SN,J d n 4th n en d d 1 1 nd r I L c o T M D G TP R P c o E E F A PRESENT: Sri C.RAVI VARMA, IpS., C. No 37/APP A/2 01 R.o .o .No 319/2 017 7 Da te: - 08 .70.2 077 Sub:-police _ Karimnao; s,i :" n nu iui,,;;;;:: Commandant, 13(h Bn. rssp fiaj, e;;;;";l ", " M a n cheri a I D istrict a g a i nst tn i- p 1," Li rr".".i r removal from servic reg. e - reiected - orders issued - iffi :., .lll"fl, i:,J): : ", " Ref:- 1. proceedings in C.No.OB/OE/4R/2014 (D.o.No. 1 123l 2074), dt. oz.iz loiiir Commandant, 13rh d Mancherial Districr. n' TSSP (IR). Gudipet,

2. Appeal petition dt.os.og.2O77 of Sri Jannaraou praveen Kumar, Ex J, a" rssp ijRi a;iil;ftl;."#,!i3;;,1.,,,, r'. 3. Letter C.No.22lApr [i f mlS,,*::,/ffil 1K ?ii i l.*?,il 1,, ", oRDER:- *** This is an appeal petition submitted by Sri Jannarapu Praveen Kumar. Ex-Jr,Ast (rR), Gudipet, r" n.n..,",' o,r11:,,t:H::t:[ i#;"]::; Removal from Service, awarded by the Commandant, 13th Bn. TSSP (IR), Gudiper, Aditabad District. The Appellant was handed upon a charge under RuJ of APCS (CC & A) Rutes. 1991 for the following delinquency indisci p line "Exhibi ted tv. d e 20 le be aviour i ct of bs ntin uti s w. e. f. 10 wP 15537 2023 SN.] 2 o2 20 23 with out anv leave oermrs slon from his s uoeflorsa nd notturne uo for d UtV The Asst. Commandant, 13'h Bn. TSSP (IR), Gudipet' Adilabad,WhoWaSappointedasEnquiryoff|cer,conductedthe oral enquiry and submitted his findings holding the charge as proved against the appellant' Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a copy of the minutes drawn by the EO was supplied to him and his further representation was called for on .r,"..on.r,,ionarrivedatbytheE.o'Heacknowledgedthe minutes oo 24.09 '2014 and submitted his further representation on 07.11.2014. After going through the findings of Enquiry Officer, connected OE records and further representatlon' the punlshing authority i'e', Commandant' 13th Bn' TSSP (IR)' Gudipet, Adilabad District, has imposed the punishment of Removal from Service and his absence period w'e'f' 05'O2'2O13 to 03.12.2014 AN was treated as "NOT ON DUTY" vide Proc.No.C No.0 SlOE/PRlzOir4 (D O'No'1-123/2014)' dt'

03.12.2074. Aggrieved with the above punishment orders' he has submittedthisappealpetitiontotheDy.InspectprGeneralof Police, K/R, Karimnagar, with a request set' aside the punishment of "Removal from Servicel'' I have of apPellant, gone through the aPPeal Petition (IR), GudiPet, the Commandant. 14th Bn' TSSP remarks of Mancherial District and connected records carefully' The appeal petltion is time barred, as the appellant has submitted this appeal after a lapse of 3 years' Hence' his appeal petition is considered and rejected ' sd/- o8.10'2017 Dy.InsPector General of Police Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar" (c) hereunoler: 11 r a a a a wP 1553/ 2023 SN,] d ds re f r t d

3. With reference ro 7. r s respe*fu;; :Jnil:::H::::Tl Petitioner vide this o 27.os.2ot4,dire*ins I ;j"Ti"^_: c'No'08/oEIPR /20t4, dra: ^l'".^i":" ; :ilH:r::i{ $,i:r ;: T: I.} ;::il,jlilil will be processed based on the merits ot owledging the reminder memo on ter has deliberately failed to submit his non receipt of written statement of the disciplinary authority appointed, commandant of this unit as Kumar' Reserve sub Inspector of ;il;, - H :, on the following dates the case. Even after - 12.06.2074, the petitior' written statement. Due defence from the petition sri p.Krishna prasad, orer' Inquiry officer and sri *.tt'tt"n' police as p."r"nti,K ; I ::::: :lJ,,'^'j i ] :: . : below. : ;T:l:: : ", 1s mentioned st. No. 1 2 10 ot.zot4 & 77.07.2074 2 2.o7.2074 & 23.07.2074 0 3.08.2014 & 04.08.2074 Da tes of O.E. Referen ce & Date AoE/ C 0 1/ 47 ad ted U 2 0 7 2 0 7 4 022/ Date oi Ack on of the et t ed e emI eon r OB ot.zot4 o7/OE/ AC dated:19. -2/2074, .07 .2074 2 t.ot .zot4 ot/oe/ ac dated:30. -2/2074, 07.2074 02 .o8.2074 Remarks Petitioner has failed to attend the o.E Petitione f has failed to attend the O. E. Petitioner has fa iled to attend the O. E. t2 wP r 5537 2023 SN,] F o t a e he a t e D lf n h k re e w a5 u r n nti on ed ta el o iven everv cha c t rs cl arlv r v d to defend E h r n h He ac his ln lnos as P oVE D vide C.No.01/ASST'CMT/OE lPRl 2Or4' dtd: 22.08.2014' A copy of the minutes was supplied to the Petitio n er vide Memo C .No.08/OE/PR/014, dtd: 11 09'2014 with lnstructions to offer his Final Written statement of defence to knowledged the minutes on 24'09 '2014 ' dispose the O'E' but did not subm it his final written statement of defense Hence a reminder was g iven to the petitioner vide this office Memo C. No.08/OE/PR/20 14, dtd: 31:10'2014 with instructions to submit his final w ritten statement or defense within (3) daYs from the date of receiPt of memo' He acknowledged the reminder memo on 03'11'2014 and su bmitted his Final Written Explanation dtd: 07 .LL.2074, statinq that "Unexpectedly he was absented for duties w.e'f' O5'O2'2O13 unauthorizedly due to KYPoscolisis and not reported for duty on 23.O2.2Ot3 with M'F'C' Further he received many memos pertaining to O'Es and charges' but he has ngt submitted anY rePlY to that effect' Moreover he statdd that his colleagues made Phone calls many times sYm PatheticallY' the said catls' What but he did not attend I have done is a very' very big mistake. But due to influence of unavoidable circumstances he is not comrng to the duties of his own accord for the past 1 1/z yadt' meanwhile his mother was fell sick and admitted in hospital and he has been going around hospitals' In this regard it is to submit that the petitioner did not submit any Medical certificate along with his Final Written statement' he did not turn up for duties up to 03 12 2014 (i'e the date of issue of 13 wP 155y) 202f SN,J Final orders of ,.REMOVAI own admission fre witfutl accord which cannot be TSSP. FROM SERVTCE,,). Hence as per his 1y absented from duties of his own [olerated in the disciplined force like

4. During the course of o' E' ' the petitioner with best of his knowledge was submitt€ td a representation for his transfer to any civir Department A. covin d rv" i t, ex- r.r rn, :l ",:il: ": : J," r::T,, j::":;:,,:; in this office from the O/o Inspector Cunurut of"pofi.", fVo.ti, Zone, Hyderabad in Memr C'No' 1 587 / AL /lGP -Nz/ 20 13, dtd : 02.og. 20 73 which .,",otuno" arly indicates his disinterest to work in this unit. f n dfr o

5. Basing on the merits of the case and explanation submitted by the petitioner it is clearly established that the Petitioner d and did not turn up to duty in spite of reasonable opportuniti€ts extended to him It shows his disinterest to contin ue ln TSSP. In terms of orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.260 General Administration (Ser. C), Department, dtd:04.09.2013 he has completed one year period of absence to duty and agreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer, he was awa rded with the punishment of ].REMOVAT FROM SERVICE- with immediate effect besides treating the absence period w .e.f 05.02.2013 to the dare of receipt oF the order as NOT ON DUTY vide Order D.O. No. 1 123l2014 (C.No.08/o E/ PR/ 20 74), dtd : O3. 12.20 t4.,, I A D o I

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal from service issued t4 wP 15531 2071 SN, ] by the 5th respondent herein does not indicate a clear finding that the absence of the petitioner from the duty is wilful and in the absence of such a finding, the absence of the petitioner does not amount to misconduct' 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referring to the specific averments made at para 7 of the affidavit fired by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition contends that petitioner had submitted his Written Explanation dated 07'11'2014 very clearly indicating that on medical grounds due to severe low back Pain kYPoscolisis and petitioner could not attend his duties and due to ill health, the clear finding that the .absence of the and deliberate, the imPugned therefore without a petitioner from the dutY is wilful proceedings issued bY the 5th respondent dated t03'12'2014 cannot sustain '

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner furtherSubmitsthatthepetitionerpreferredanappealdated 26.O8.2017 addressed to the 4th respondent herein' and requested to allow the appeal preferred by the petitioner and set aside the Removal from Service order served upon the petitioner dated 03.12.2014 by the 5th respondent herein' However without considering the same, 4th respondent mechanically without ,l 7 15 wP 15537 2023 SN, ,, :etitioner applying its mind independenfly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner as time barred as the petitioner had submitted the appeal after a lapse of three years. Aggrieved by the same, the fited the present writ petition and contends that the dosence of the petitioner is due to circumstances beyond petitioner,s control and absence is neither wilful nor deliberate and the 5th respondent did not gave a clear finding to the afFect that the absence of the petitioner was deliberate or wilful and therefore the present writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for. 8, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments rn"a. in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of all the respondents contends that in spite of three opportunities grJen ,o ,lrl petitioner, the petitioner failed to attend the oral enquiry and ex parte enquiry is conducted and accordingly it was held appropriate to remove the petitioner from the service and the 5th respondent passed the said orders and the same had been confirmed by the appettate authority vide its order dated Og.lO .2Ot7 andtherefore, the petationer is not entiUed for any relaef as prayed for in the present writ petition and the writ petition needs to be dismissed. I 16 wP 15537 20 21 SN, ]

9. A bare oerusal of the order imouqned dated 03.L2.20L4 of the 5th resoondent clearlv indicates that there is no clea r findino that the absence of Detitio er had been del iberate or wilful and further the a ooel late es not r hea eal and reie ted the same on the oround that the aooeal oreferred bv the Detitioner is barred bv limitation and not on merits and therefore, this Court oDines that t e subiect issue needs to be reconsidered bv the sth resoonde nt.

10. In simi lar circumstanc s. the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 24.O1.2016 in w.P. No.38O57 t the relevant Do ion at Dara No.11, observed oJ 2OL5, asu der: The department did not sanction leave or refer him to the Medical Board for examination. Inasmuch as the leave application dt: 26.11.2009 was within the period of one year, upon which no order of either sanctioning or refusing was passed, the invocation of drastic provision of F.R 18-A and ordering deemed resignation is not legally valid. In the decision reported in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another (AIR 2072 SC (Supp) 42) submitted by learned counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Apex Cou rt held that in a Deoartmental oroceedinq, if alleqation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciolinarv authoritv is reouired to orove that the absence is wilfu l, in absence of .-==iF--i€ -J 7 77 o w wP 15537 -2O2J 5N,J n c r r t r n n f z a t o n ou d a wilf eventualities due to which an em including compelling circumstan illness, accident hospitalization employee cannot be he,d guilt his behaviour unbecoming of decision squarely applies t petitioner failed to establish fi unauthorisedly absent excee leave and secondly, Therefore e There may be different Pioyee may abstain from duty, ces beyond his control like , etc but in such case the y of failure of devotion to duty or a Government servant. The above o the instant case. Here, rstly that the respondent remained ding one year without applying for unauthorized absence was wilful the impugned order passed under G.O. Ms.No.122 General Administration (Op .V) Department dt: 01.05.2014 was rightly set aside by the Tri bunal. We see no reason to interfere with the said order

11. Th o 2 12 (3 ) sc N NO 5 b DI v d n a e t78 rn "KRUSH NAKANT B .PARMA 1 5 o d v N a T n I a ti a r s

16. The question whe r 'unauthorised absence from duty, amounts to faitur of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming or u cor"ru withoutdecidins*,eq,lltlJ,l;T:ili,T:Ji.::,1",',1,.,: or because of compelting circumstances. 17. If the absence is the circumstances under which it was result of compe[ing not possible to report 18 wP 15517 2023 sN,l or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful.

18. Absence from duty without any application or prtor permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospita lisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant.

19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

20. In the present case the Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent From duty but failed to hold the absence is willful; the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant gLiilty.

21. The question relating to jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review in a Departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M'B- Bjilanlys- Union ol lndia and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein this Court held: "lt is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved r U 7 19 wP-1553 7_2023 SN,] F Iike a criminal trial i.e ou':no all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of :, that the enquirv officer performs a quasi-luoic:l:.n" the documents ;#:l^t::ction' who upon anarysins at a conclusion that there had o""n u o.uoono;;;."'..'" probabiiity to prove the charges on the basis o, ,,u,".,ult on record' while doing so, he cannot take into .onrijl any irrelevant L.t. Hu cannot refuse ,o .onrial"t.".tion the rerevant racts. He cannot shift rhe or.a";;;;.:r He. cannot reject the rerevant tesrimony ,r" ;;;J;:' "r onlv on the basis of surmises and conietur".. ;; ;:t into the ailegations with which '-- 'l officer had not bu"n .iu.ged with.,, "" o",,ror",]ot -:no''tu bv Shri P. venkare disciprinary authority faired to prove juty was willful, no such finding has been Appellate Aurhoriry. Though " d specific defence that he was

22. In the present cas( that the absence no, I fn" given by the Inguiry the appeilanr n"o ,"ltlt;".'rthe prevented t o, ",,unou palanpur -n" ,.;r";;ile, .dutv arso broushr on record l: "'"" tn" "t;;;;,iwarlu' derence rhat he *u, ,.u " derence ",n;;;;';; :" to sigri the t-'o-'pPo,.t this incrudes his retter a'lntuo shri K.p. Jain, JD,rru,'"lfo '- ot,.o"";;:::I:::t:: office or rurupr,onu';;;'-*'"0-bad' receipts rrom srD/pco ed 29th september, 1995, etc. but such defence uno uria"nll isnored and on the basis or irrerevant o" .;';;1".1"': n'ses the Inquiry officer herd the appellant guirty. lesister and ot n't DcIo'

23. lvlr. p. Venkateswa complainant and against rtl'' appear before the Inquirv ot'o' Palanpur, who was the vhom appellant alleged bias refused to rwo other -,;:,;::; ;i'::: ff T:,"1 i:ffi ;: : il[T: t t \ i\ I 20 wP 15537 2023 sN,l statement against the appellant, and one of them stated that he hadnoknowledgeaboutabsenceoftheappellant.Ignoringthe aforesaid evidence, on the basis of surmises and conjectures' the Inquiry Officer held the charge proved'

24. Though the aforesaid facts noticed by the Appellate Authority but ignoring such facts giving reference of extraneous allegations which were not the part of the charge' dismlssed the appeal with following uncalled for observation: "The appellant even avoided the basic trainlng required for the job and asked JAD Ahmedabad to send all the training papers for his training at IB Training School' Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) to his residence at Ahmedabad' 'An untrained officer ls of no worth to the department'."

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed' The impugned orders of passed by disciplinary authority, affirmed by the dismissal Authority; Central Administrative liibunal and High Appellate Court are set aside. The appellant stands reinstated' Taking into consideration the fact that the Charged Officer has suffered a lot since the proceeding was drawn in 1996 for absence from duty for a certain period, we are not remitting the proceeding to the disciplinary authority for any further action' Further, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has not worked for a long time we direct that the appellant be paid 50o/o of the back wages but there shall be no order as to costs' L2, A bare perusal of the order impugned dated Cr3.L2.2OL4 issued by the Sth respondent and the record clearly indicates that in the present case the Inquiry I { 27 wP 1553 / 2023 SN,J ! unauthorizedly Officer though held that the petitioner was absent from duty but however, faited to hold the said absence as willful, the disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the petitioner guilty and therefore this Court opines that petitioner is entiiled for retief as prayed for. fn view of the fact that the Appeltate Authority i.e., thq 4ur respondent vide impugned order dated OB.tO.2Ot7 mechanically rejected the appeat preferred by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of removal passed by the 5th respondent dated O3.lr2.zLl4not on merits but on the ground that the same is time barred, this Court opanes that there rs no justification in the said order passed by the 4th respondent and hence the rsame is atso set aside. ft is however observed that it is open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner if they intend to do so but the same shall be strictly in accordance to law, in conformity with principtes of naturat justice as per due procedure contemplated under Rule 2O of Telangana State CCA Rules 1991.

13. KI N INT o c ONsrD E TION: 22 wP 15537 2023 sN,l a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The submissions made bY the appearing on behalf of the petitioner Government Pleader aPPearing on respo ndents, lea rned and the behalf cou n sel lea rned of the c) The order impugned dated O3'12'2014 issued by the Sth respondent to the Petitioner, d) Proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 08'10'2OL7' e) The averments of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above)' In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Sth respondent dated 03.12.2014 is set aside an{ also the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated O8'1O '2OL7 is set aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitaoner into service' Further keeping in view the fact that petitioner did not work since December 2O14 this Court directs that the petitioner be paid 5oo/o of the back wages as held by the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2OL2 (3) SCC 178 in 'KRUSHNAKANT B' PARMAR v UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER"' dated r-:-,- I )2 wP- t5537 2023 SN,J tS.O2.2Ot2 (referred to and extracted above), within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However there shatt be - Y,s.. ue no order as to costs. M iscella neoul rha t R u re Ni" i h, ; ;, ;; ^ll."liff "ijflr;I"":j]" s s ha r I s ra n d cro s ed. \ Witness THE HON,BLE Ar r*",t;;;;;:ycl'Ii,"JiT.'r1.,rJ:i:r^1?"rm;i|,!ondav,rhe //TRUE COPYII o..,.ilfiT#?#ffiX SECTION OFFICER To 500 004 [gX4,l;o*", oolice, Telangana, Saifab porice, r"ri a"*, n*"1lolJo""o"o 'J::,IIj?,.jf if,"S,,:,,:r"l?"","T1#::ift"J;[:f 2. The Director General r 3. The rnspecto, oururr," 4 rhe Deputy rnspector.or ' m:,Ut*tffi ;,,g*e:ffi : J:il, iffi .fi ;";il., 6. One CC to Sri Gundrat 'ty,"",."nii:#;"-::],i,ill;1ffi lo#],,,u,""n,,"", t for Home, Hish court ror the stare or reransana. at lff".t"?i:r&t 9. Two CD Copies k'-ur/' ?P TJ Its I i I ! a ---i {i;'z;:? -':'- - .1_, ., '.r.\ t l5r.? ?[25 lt .: t-+ t HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2310612025 ORDER WP.No.15537 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ .)N 1a