SRl. p v. KRISHNAIAH

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ihe circumstances stat in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to consider and promote the Petitioner to the post Associate Professor along with his juniors' under Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, for the panel year 2024-25 ' as per his seniority' without reference to the Proceedings Rc No 3B99A/|C/2014 dated 13 1'1 2015 issued by the 1't Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition' & Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' P' V' KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.17735 of 2o24 and 11675 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:- Since the issue involved in these writ petitions and the petitioner are one and the same, both the writ petitions are being disposed ol by this common order

2. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.17735 of 2024 are discussed hereunder :-

4. W.P.No. 17735 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief :- "..... fo ls.sue a turit, order or direction, more particularly one in tLrc rloture of a wit of Mandctmus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the departmental proceedings initiated ogoinst the petitioner bg the 7.t respondent bg Proceedincls Rc.No.3899/ VlC/ 2014, doted 29.1O.2O14 includirtg the proceedings Rc.No.3899 / VlC/ 2014, dated 13.11.2O15 issued bg the 7st respondent and consequential Memo No.5096/ VC.2/ 2022-2, dated 26.07.2022 issued by the 3'd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malaftde, uoid and uithout juisdiction and set aside the 2 same and issue unsequential directions directing the respondents to forthtttith consider and promote the petitioner os Associate Professor (Ptastic Surgery) as per senionty along utith others, tuitttout reference to the proceedings Rc No' 38gg/VlC/2014, dated 13 112O15 issued by tht'- 1"t respondent .....". 5 The brief facts in W.P.No' 17735 of 2024 are as follows (i) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in General Surgery and joined in service on 10'11'2006' and subsequently, he acquired M.C'H' qualification and iater he got posting orders as Assistant Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery in Osmania Medical College in 2OI4' The petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for being promoted to the post of Associate Professor (Plastic Surgery), as he is the senior most AssociateProfessorinPlasticSurgeryunderthejurisdictionof the 1"t respondent. However, the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of imposing punishment vide proceedings dated 13.11.2O15, wherein the 1"t respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven arnual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides treating the unauthorized absence from

06.05.2007 to 26.07 .2O 14 as' dies-non'' 3 (ii) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the

3.d respondent. The 3'd respondent vide Memo No.234glVC/2/ 20l5-2, dated 10.05.2016, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated i0.05.2016, the petitioner again hled ar appeal before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, who inturn rejected the appeal vide Memo No. 2348/VC-2|2OIS 3, dated 27 .O2.2O2O q.ithout considering the contentions raised in the appeal and u,ithout taking into consideration the findings of the enquiry ofhcer holding that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is notjustihed. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner frled an appeal before the Secretar5z to Government, Health, Medical ard Family Welfare (VC) Department on 11 .O5.2022, ri,ho also rejected the appeal vide Memo No. 5096 / VC. 2 I 2022,2, dated 26.O7 . 2022. Ctraflenging the same, the petitioner has hled the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1"r respondent issued a charge memo on 29.lO.2Ol4 framing the charge of unauthorized absence with effect from 06.05.2007 till the petitioner reported to duty without mentioning any date. Even though the petitioner reported to duty in the year 201O, the respondents issued a posting order only in 2014. The petitioner 3 4 has submitted an explanation to the charge memo on

23.12.2014, but the 1st respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in terms of Rule 20 of Lhe C.C.A. Rules appointed the Principal, Osmania Medical College as an Enquiry Ofhcer and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry submitted report on 13.07.2015 holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. However, the 1't respondent, without giving any reasons to differ with the report of the Enquiry Ofhcer and without looking into the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 24.08.2015 as if the Enquiry Officer held that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. The l't respondent is not competent to initiate departmental proceedings and imposition of punishment of stoppage of seven alnual grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated

13.11.2O15 is without jurisdiction and contrary to C.C.A. Rules and rvithout differing with the Enquiry Offrcer's report is held to be bad by the Hon'ble Sr.rpreme Court in a catena of decisions.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the l"t respondent called particulars from the Unit Offrcers to effect promotion to the post of Associate Professor in ,} ) vaI10t.ls Departments, including the Plastic Surgery arrd even though the competent authority sent particulars of the petitioner, the 1"t respondent is not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of imposing the punishment of stoppage of seven alnual grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated i3. i 1.2015, which is arbitrary, illegal and violatrve of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as there is no statutory rule issued to the effect that the officers, rvho have undergone punishment shall not be considered for promotion inasmuch as the post of Associate Professor is a selection post and it is for the D.P.C. to examine the entire facts u,hether to recommend the case or not ald based o11 any Executive instructions, the authorities cannot deny u,ithout there being any Statutory Rules giving power to the authorities to defer or u,ithhold promotion. Therefore, the impugned punishment order is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that u,hen the Enquiry Offrcer held that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified, the l"t respondent cannot impose any punishment without giving J' 6 any valid reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer g. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further the Government had rejected the submits that appeal/revision/review filed by the petitioner by non-speaking order, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, troth on facts and law. Therefore, prays that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition setting aside the impugned punishment order and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor.

10. While reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit hled by the l"t respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Surgery during the 2006 recruitment and joined in service on 10' 11'2O06 He was unauthorizedly absent from O1'O6'2OO7' During his absence, he joined the M'ch (Plastic Surgery) in the 2011 batch from O1.O8.20 11 to 3t'O5'2O14 at Galdhi Medical College' secunderabad. The Petitioner submitted a representation dated ') 1

26.07 .2014 for reposting order as Assistant Professor Plastic Surgery and, accordingly, he was posted at Osmania Medical College, Hyclerabad, vide proceedings Rc.No.3899/D4l2Ol4, dated 29.O9.2O121 of the 1st respondent. The ls1 respondent has initiated departmental proceedings on 29. 10.2O\4 against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from 06.O5.2007 to

26.07 .2O 14 as per CCA Rules, 199 1 . After following the due procedure, the petitioner was imposed a major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of absence as 'Dies-non' vide proceedings Rc.No. 3899/VIC / 20 14, dated 13. 1 1.20 1 5.

11. During the period of unauthorized absence, he also joined the M.ch Piastic Surgery Course from O1.08.2O11 to 31.05.2014 and reported back to duty, informing of acquiring the Super Speciality qualification. He was issued reposting orders for the post of Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery, pending departmental action, as per nrles in vogue

12. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a representatlon on 16.09.2010, but he joined in M.ch (Plastic Surgery) over the period from 2O1.I to 2Ol4 . Later, vide his :x I i I ,ii' i; 8 representation dated 26.07 .2014, sought reposting back in service, duly informing of acquiring the Super Speciality quaiifications. Hence he was issued reposting orders in 2074 as Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery pending departmental action.

13.Itisfurthercontendedthatthel'trespondent,beingthe competent disciplinary authority, has taken action against the petitioner as postulated under Rule 2l sub-ruie (2) of A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 199 1, which reads as under :- "The disciplinary outhoritg shall forutard or cause to be foruuard.ed a cop11 of the report of the enquiry, if ang, held by the disciplinory authoritg or tthere the disciplinary authoity is ruot the inquirg authoitg a copg of the report of the inquiring authoritg together tuith its outn tentatiue reasons for disagreement, if ang, uith the findings of inquiing authoritg on anA atlicle of charge to the Gouentment seruant tttho sholl be required to submit, if he desires, his uritten representation of submission to the disciplinary authoritg ttithin ftfteen dags, trrespectiue of rtthether report is fauoroble or not to tLte Gouentment seruant'" L4. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3'd respondent requesting that he may be exonerated from the punishment. The respondent authorities 9 examined the appeal of the petitioner and rejected vide Memo dated 10.05.20 16. The petitioner submitted another appea,l to consider the period frorn 2OO7 to 20ll as extraordinar5r leave and the period from 20 I I to 20 14 as Study leave and waive the punishment. The 3.d respondent vide Memo dated 27.O2.2O2O rejected the appeal, as there are no fresh grounds. Again, the petitioner submitted another representation on 1 1.05.2O22 to the 3rci respondent requesting to waive the punishment, which r,vas also examined and rejected vide Memo dated 26.O7.2O22.

15. It is further contended that the petitioner has submitted his particulars for promotion to the post of Associate Professor of Plastic Surgery, still in vieu, of imposing of punishment against the petitioner, his candidature was not considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.O8.1997. The l.t respondent 1S competent to take administrative decisions, including departmental action for the post of the petitioner, in accordance with the CCA Rules, i 99 1 . The petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty for the period from 06.05.2007 to 26.07.2014, and during the said period, he had joined and pursued M.ch Piastic Surgery without any prior permission or intimation. The 3'd respondent, being the next appellate I 10 authority, examined the appeals of the petitioner and rejected them thrice as per the rules in vogue' Since the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven alnual grade increments with cumulative effect, his candidature was not considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor Plastic Surgery in terms of G.O.Ms'No '342, daled 04'08'1997 '

16. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that after a lapse of nine years, the petitioner approached this Court seeking promotion without reference to thepunishmentordersissuedduring2ol5'Theauthoritiesalso thrice confrrmed that the l't respondent being the cornpetent authority rightly imposed the punishment against the petitioner' Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

17. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied l.pon a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P'No'36516 of 2024, dated O3.O2.2O25, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTen PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs' RAJMATI .) 1,1 SIIVGIIT and STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJMATI SINGH2. I B. Heard both sides. Perused the record The .findings of this Court:- 19 . The main contention of the respondents is that the authority did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion \\'as not considered on the ground of delay and imposition of major punishment against the petitioner.

20. The petitioner made an application seeking leave before the respondent authorities on O6.05.2007, but the respondents neither accepted nor rejected the leave application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner after three and half years again made a representation on 16.09.2010 for rejoining the duty, but did not respond. The concerned slept over the representations of the petitioner for severai years. After issuance of reposting orders, the 1"t respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.3899/ VICl2Ol4, dated 29.1O.2014, framing the following charge against the petitioner. '120231 20 Supreme Court Cases 817 'z2022 Law Suit (SCl 1486 TI 77 "That Dr. L Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, Assistant Professor of Ptostic Surgery. Osmania Medical College, Hgderabod is on unouthoized- absence from dutg ttL'eJ 06/05/2007 to bill he reported for dutg due to uhich much inconuenience is being caused to the hospital tuork and patient car. ?his shorus his lack of deuotion to the profession, therebg causing dislocation of hospital rltork' patient care and" teaching programme' Statement of arlrictes of imputation of unauthorized absence of Dr /r:Ls been on unauthonzed from dutg w'e'f 06.05.2007 to till due to which necessory inconuenience is caused and the hospital utork uas badlg affected and causing dislocation of tle utork hospital'" 2|.Pursuarrttotheabovechargememo,thepetitionerhas submitted his explanation on 23' 12'2014 stating as foilows : "My father suffered cerebral stroke in the month of mag 2007 anrl as I am the onlg son I needed to support him uith continuous medical care' Due to being ignorant of nLles and lack of proper guidonce I continuecl to be on absence up to 15 09 2O1O during course of u-thich I did not leaue the country as I haue not euen applied for passporl so far' I houe reported- on 16-O9-201O at the office of the Director of Medical Dducation from the leaue period requesting to issue orders permitting me resume mg duties uide ref no.3, but for unknotun reasons I did not receiue ang information from gou- 13 Meanuthile I was selected for admission in to super specialtll course (M.Ch. plastic surgery in Gandhi Medical Collegte uide ref. no,5 ond I joined the course on O1-08 2O11. I represented again (second time) at the office of the Dire-ctor of Medical Education to take me to thq serui.ce uthi.le pursuinll mA super specialtg course uide ref.4.But unfortun.atelg I haue not euen infonned obout the status of mg job. Dting mg super specialtll course I ucts uery much regul.ar to mg duties & I uorked to the satisfaction of m11 professor & other senior staff uide Ref. no.6. I passed mg M.Ch. course in JuIy 2O14 uide ref.7 ancl ajl.er representing for the third time I houe got the. reposting orders Jiom the Director of Medical Education posting as ossistanf professor of plastic surgery at Osmania Medical College on 29-09-2O14 uhere I reported to dutg on the same day le. 29 09 2014. After i repofted back to dutg I haue been rettdeing continuous seruice uithout ctruy leaues and to th.e utmost satisfaction of mg supeiors till to date uithoul ang aduerse remarks- I promise lou to continue in qouernment seruice till my retirement and I tuill utork with the same enthusittsm I haue been shotuing nou..t. I haue been serued tuith a charge memo uide memo Rc no. 3899/VlC/2014, dated 29-1O-2O14 of The Director of Medical Education, Telangana state, Hgderabad for tuhich I am here uith submitting the explonation as stated aboue. I i I I I I 1 I , L4 RePtg to charge 1 I utas unauthoizedly absent from dutg from 06-05-2007 due to mA father's itl health tuho suffered cerebral stroke and I tttos constroined to keep a utau from mA duties since no other familg merlber is there to look dfter mA old oged father' The releuant medical records are enclosed for gour kind reference uide ref no2' Fu'rther I utould like to inform gou that I am uery much interested in doing Gouernment seruice to tuork in teai:hing hospitals to serue Poor and needg Patients' RePlg to clnrge 2 I haue not intentionallg kept ouag from the hospital utork as mg father tuas totallg dependent on me and I utas to look after him in the dailg needs of mg father' And I assure thot I u.till conttnue in Gouernment seruice till the end of mg retirement to serue poor & needy patients and in to the students (under graduates & teaching Programmes post graduates). I request Aou to consid'er mg expla ruotiort on humanitariangroundsu-thicharefactsandlrequestaouto drop further action agoinst me in this regard dutr'g regularizing the leaue peiod from 06-05-2007 to 31 O7- 2O11 as EOL on priuate affairs' and the peiod bettueen O7- O8-2O11to 28-09 2O14 as studg leou ttthich I shall be euer grateful to gou-"

22. Not satished '.^rith the above explanation of the petitioner' the respondent authorities have appointed an Enquiry ofhcer I I I i I I ,'1 15 i.e., Principal, OMC, Hyderabad, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Ruies, 199 1, to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. He has completed the enquiry ald on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, he has prepared the enquiry report, which reads as under :- "On the basis of the documentary and oral euidences adducecl in tLte case before me and in uieuL of the reasons giuen aboue, I h.old that the finding for the charges aga.insl Dr.L.Roja Kiran Kumar are giuen as follows: "Charge No.1 (ct) Since the authority neither rejected. his applied leaae Jrom 06-05-2007 ontaards, nor directcd to report back for dutg and not processed the joining reports subtnitted. bg hin on 76-09-2O7O ond. 13-77- 2073, I Jeel that fratning the chdrges oJ unauthorized absence frotn dutg is not justiJied. (b) In case, euen though the charged. olJicer not srbmitted ang leaae applications, it responsibilitg oJ the disciplinary outhoritg/ appointing authoritg to gioe a notice instr.ucting hirn to join dutg since his resid.ential ad.dress is a uailoble in the Jile."

23. It is to be seen that after conducting a detaiied enquiry, the Enquiry Ofhcer held that framing of charges of unauthorized absence from duff 1S not justihed. However, without even looking into the hndings given by the Enquiry Officer in the -;I t, 16 enquiry report, the l"t respondent issued show-cause notice, dated 24.O8.20 15, stating as follows :- "Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goutl is directed to shou-t cause u-tithin 15 rlags from the date of receipt of this memo' as to tuhg disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the chorge of unauthoized absence u.e.f. 06.O5.2o07 to 2g.Og-2014 uhich u.tas held proued duing the ertquiry failing u.thich it rttiLl be constnted that he has no explanation to submtt and further action utill be taken bosed on the material auailable."

24. For the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanatio n on 17 .1 0.20 15 stating as follorvs : - "Charge no.1 (a). Since the authoritg neither rejected his applied leaue from 06-05 2OO7 ontuards, nor directed to report back for dutg ond not processed the joining repotts submitted bg him on 16-09-2O10 and 13-112O13, I feel that framing the chorges of unauthorized absence from dutg is not justified. (b)In case, euen though the charged officer not subm.itted any leaue applications, it is the responsibilitg of the disciplinary authoitg/ appointing authoity to giue a notice instructing him to ioin dutg since his residential address is ouailable in the Jlle." In the aboue context, I submit for gour kind pentsal that the findings of the Enquiry Officer has declared that the cLrtrges against me ore not justifi.ed, uhere cts, it has 1 17 mentiotrcd, in the show cause notice that the charges are heLd proued. T'herefore I request the kind authoity to drop the charges fratnecl again.st me and drop the further action basing on tLrc findin.gs oJ'the Enquiry Officer."

25. It is surprising to note that before conducting disciplinary proceedings or issuing a shou' cause notice, the authorities have not even gone through the ltndings of the Enquiry Ofhcer, which are to the effect that : " Since the authotitg neither rejected his appeal leaue from 06.05.2007 ontuords, nor directed to report back for dutg and not processed the joining reports submitted bg him on 16.O9.201O and 13.11.2O13, I feeL that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not.justiJied. "

26. Furthermore, contrary to the hndings in the enquiry report, the 1" respondent issued a show-cause notice stating that charge No.1 had been proved. It clearly shows that either the respondent authorities might not have gone through the Iindings of the enquiry report and issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner intentionally to harass the petitioner' Further, surprisingly, even when the petitioner filed an appeal three times, the 3'a respondent also, without looking into the frndings of the i t i i 1, a 18 Enquiry Officer, erroneously rejected the appeals thrice, which clearly shows the negligent attitude of the respondents, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

27. As per the enquiry officer's report, once the petitioner applied for leave from 06.O5.2007 onwards, the authorities have to consider or reject the leave applicatron or direct the petitioner to join duty. Without doing anything from 06 '05.2OO7 till initiation of the departmental proceedings in the year 2074, th,e respondents slept over the representation of the petitioner, whrch is nothing but unlarrr,{ul and against the principles of natural justice ald also a violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2A. In view of such laxity and improper administration by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Unfortunately, to cover up the laches on their part, the respondents' with a malicious intention, imposed the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect for unauthorized absence of the petitioner. When the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly, the respondents must issue a notice directing the petitioner to join 19 duty immediately. in the instant case, the only mistake committed bJ, th. petitioner is that he has not applied for leave immediately. After some time, he made an application seeking leave on account of the ill-hea-lth ol his father. When the petitioner made an application seeking leave, the respondents or-rght to have accepted or rejected the same based on the circumstances. But, without doing so, the respondents have neglected the ieave application for several years and later imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven arnual grade increments u'ith cumulative effect, which is illegal and unconstitutional and aiso it amounts to travesty of justice'

29. While submitting the explanation to the show-cause notice, the petitioner stated that due to the ill health of his father, rn'ho suffered a cerebral stroke, he could not apply for leave immediately, and thereafter, he made an application seeking leave. Once the petitioner applied for leave, the respondents ought to have taken action either accepting or rejecting the said leave application. But, without doing so, the respondents have slept over the leave application for several years, and the said action is bad in law as per the enquiry report. Another surprising thing to be noted is that though the Enquiry Ofhcer ?l l i l I i i I t i. 20 recorded a frnding in the enquiry report stating that the action of the respondents is not justifred, contrary to the said finding, the 1"r respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner stating that the charge framed against the petitibner is proved and imposed the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumuiative effect, which indicates the negligent and improper administration by the authorities'

30. Another unfortrmate thing is that in the counter filed by the 1"t respondent, there is no whisper about conducting of enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Offrcer' The respondents are only contending that there is a delay of nine years in approaching this Court seeking promotion without reference to the imposition It is not of punishment vide proceedings dated 13 ' 1 I 20 1 5 ' known how the respondents concluded that there is a delay of nine years in approaching the court' When the petitioner is approaching the higher authorities by filing appeals, and last1y when the 3'd respondent passed frnal rejection order in the year 2022, it cannot be said that there is a delay of nine years' Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has approached the Court with a delay of nine years calnot be accepted. The 3'd respondent has rejected the appeal on 21

26.07.2022 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has fi1ed W.P.No.17735 of 2024 on O5.O7.2024. Therefore, the respondents cannot count the period from the date of imposing the punishment. For all these years, the petitioner has been pursing the matter by way of liling appeals and having loss the battle before the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking justice.

31. The decision in W.P.No.36516 of 2024. rehed upon by the learned Government Pleader, a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 5% years. In the said case, after dismissal from service on 09.04.20 19, the petitioner herein had approached the Court with a delay of 5% years, and hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case

32. In the case on hand, the petitioner is not dismissed from service, and he applied for leave, which has not been acted upon by the respondent authorities for several years, either accepting or rejecting it, nor the authorities directed the petitioner to join duty. Without doing anything, the authorities slept over the leave application without passing any orders. In view of the ) I I 't l I I I I I I I ! i t I I 22 negligence of administration by the authorities, no one can be made to suffer.

33. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS VS RAJMATI SINGH a, relied upon by the learned Government Pleader for Services, the Apex Court held as follows :-

20. T'aking inlo consideration the cumulative effect of the facts in this case, coupletl utith the legal principles cited above' we are satisJied that lhe claint of the respondent is stale, highly belated, titne burred' anrl the sr.tme ought nol to have been enlertained by the Trihunal or the High Cotrrt after a span ofover lhree decades'

22. Having held so, let us look into the conduct of the appellants as well. It is true that the Stale Informalion Commissiott had no authority to intrurle into a service dispute and pass an inappropriate' order like datecl 05.03.2009. The Tribunal, however, corrected that error ancl turned rlown lhe respondent's claims being barred by limitation That orrler was nutlifiert by the High Court vide impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2012. Tlrc appeLlants sat silent and accepled that verdict utithout any murmur. The said Judgntent has, in a way, attained finality, though it is legally unsttstainable Having accepted that Judgment, the appellants ought to have been prepared lo face the next cofisequence which fell on them when the Tribunal directed them to decide the respondent's representations afresh This led to the revival ofa ghost claim after over 30 years. The appellants were expecled to immediately understand the implications and consequences of events I2022 Law surt (sc) 1486 ! I l l 23 as they unfolded but lhey remained silent on the .iudgment dated 02.07.2012. fJnder these circtlmstances, the appellants are also partially responsible for engendering hope in respondent al ajuncture when she was nearing the age of superannualion.

34. In the above case, the respondent therein appears to have made several representations one after the other, but did not deem it appropriate to approach any judicial or quasi judicial forlm.

35. In the case on hand, there is no question of making several representations. Only due to unavoidable reasons, the petitioner did not submit the leave application for three years. Even after three years, once the petitioner approached the authorities, the authorities ought to have passed any orders on the said leave appiication. But, for the reasons best known to thern, the respondents kept silent on the representation for a long time. Final1y, the authorities allowed the petitioner to join duty in the year 2OI4.

36. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is administrative delay on the part of the respondent authorities in passing orders on the leave letter i I I I I I I t I I I I I i 24 submitted by the petitioner either rejecting or accepting the same or issuing notice to the petitioner directing him to report to duty immediately, as rightly mentioned in the enquiry report' issuing of charges against the petitioner is unjustified' In the said circumstalces, the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulatirre effect imposed by the respondent authorities is highly irrational and the same is liabie to be modified.

37. So far as the behaviour of the petitioner is concerned' though he has not applied for leave due to the ill-health of his father, he would have approached the respondent authorities by way of mail or letters or telephonic conversation' The negligence on the part of the petitioner also cannot be appreciated Being a responsible Doctor, the petitioner expected to inform the authorities concerned about his absence immediately or within a stipulated time.

38. Therefore, keeping in view the laches on the part of both the parties, the punishment of stoppage of seven increments with cumulative effect is liable to be modifred, and it is accordingly ( 25 modified as imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

39. In view of the above modification, the petitioner is not entitled for any promotion as per G.O.Ms.No.3 42. General Administration Department, dated 04.Og.fgg7.

40. Accordingly, W.p.Nos. IZZ3S of 2024 and W.p.No. 11625 of 2025 are disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall star-rd closed. SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secRfi-orrrcen One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) - To, 1 2 4 r) 7 B o 11 L.R. CoPies fh" U"O* Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court Buildings, HYderabad ifre Oiiectoi ot tiledical Education, State of Telangana, Sulthan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. The Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad The Principai Secretary to Governmeit, Health, tvledical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings,T S , HVdera!1d-..^ One CC to SRl. P. V. KRISHNAIAH 'Advocate [OPUC] i*o cc, to Gp FOR SERVTCES ll ,High court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies g BM BS *h HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 R 1HE S14 I4: o(/\ J ii'J 19 AUB 206 (' t; COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.17735 ot 2024 AND WPNo. 11675 OF 2025 i I DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS @o{'u ffi--