The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 in issuing the impugned order ihrough vide C.No.BB/A4lOSLl2014, dated 20.3.2014 and removed from service of the petitioner i.e., the Post of Police Constable in IV BN APSP, Mamnoor Lines of Amberpet Unit, without considering the explanation of the petitioner and non-initiating to consider the representation of the petitioner and reinstate into the petitioner service, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the lmpugned Desertion Order through vide C.No.88/A4|0SL12014, dated 20.3.2014 issued bythe 3rd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m 3y be pleased to stay of all further proceecings pursuant to the lmpugned Desertion Order through vide C.No.88/A4|OSL12014, dated 20.3.2014 issued by the 3rd res:ondent, by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to reinstate into the service of the petitioner as constable in the lV APSP BN, Amberpet Unit, Hyderabad pending Cisposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DINES REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SERVICES (HoME) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2819O OF 2O21 ORDER Heard Sri Dinesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and the Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aoproached the Court seekinq praver as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 in issuing the impugned order through vide C. No. BB/ A4/OSL/2014, dated 20.3.2014 and removed from service of the petitioner i.e., the Post of Police Constable in IV BN APSP, Mamnoor Lines of Amberpet Unit. without considering the explanation of the petitioner and non-initiating to consider the representation of the petitioner and reinstate into the petitioner service, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural lustice violation oF Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the Impugned Desertion Order through vide C. No.88/A4/OSL/2014, dated 20.3.2014 issued by the 3'd respondent and pass..."

3. The case of the oetitioner, in brief, as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the petationer in suoport of the present Writ Petition is as under: 2 SN,J w. P.No.28190 0f 2021 i) The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in IV Battalion, r\PSP, Amberpet Unit, Hyderabar- in 2012 and discharged iris duties without any adverse remat'1.<s ii) In 2014, due to death of the petitionr:r's father, the petitioner st,:yed with his family and could not al-iend duties. The petitioner had applied for leave and informed tht: authorities iii) However, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity ,rf explanation, respondent No.4 passed a Desertion Order vide tl.No.BB/A4IOSL/2014 dated 20.03.2014, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner fil€d the present writ petition

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The rel va t oortion of the imouqned order vide e n C.No.88/A4 /osL/20 1.4 20.O3.201.4 isslJed bv the respondent iNo.4 to the D.O.No.299l20::4 rein is extracted h ereu nder: "Slri Ch.Shiva Raju PC t42 of 'H' Coy was sanctioned (03) days CL wef 19-02'2014 AN to 22-02- 2014 AN by OC'H'Cay. But he has not reported for SN,J W.P.No.28190 of 2021 duty and became OSL w.e.f 22-02-2014 AN. He has completed (21) days desertion period by 15-03-2014 AN. As such the OC "H'Coy, vide reference 2nd cited has requested to declare the PC as deserter w.e.f 22- 02-2074 AN as per the Order 184 of APPM. Hence, Sri Ch.Shiva Raju, PC 142 of 'H' Coy is declared as a deserter w.e.f . 22-02-2014 AN i.e., from the date of OSL, as per Order No 184 of Andhra Pradesh Police Man nual. If he has any intention of joining duty, he should report before the Commandant, IV B APSP, mamnoor Lines, Warangal within two months from the date of desertion or one month from the date of issue of this Order whichever is la ter. This Order sent in duplicate to acknowledge its receipt on the duplicate copy and submit the same to this office for taking further action in this matter." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, without considering the petitioner's explanation, the petitioner was removed from service unilaterally by respondent No.3 without conducting any enquiry. It is contended that the petltioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain the reasons for not attending duty during the period mentioned in the desertion order dated 20.03.2015. It is further submitted that the alleged absence was neither 4 SN,J w.P.No.2819O of 2021 deliberate nor willful but was on account of rtre death of the petitioner's father, which left the petitioner urrable to provide food and :;helter for his children.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further subrrits that, despite the petitioner h aving submitted detailed retresentations dated 10.06.2020 ernd 05.05.2021, requesting the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable in IV APSP BN, Amberpet, Hyderabac, ''espondents No.2 and 3 have not considered the same.

7. Learneri counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly, lraragraphs 5 and 10, contends that the petitioner was declare(J a deserter with effect from the afternoon of

22.02.2O14 5y respondent No.3 vide desertion order dated

20.03.2014. Having acknowledged the said desertion order on

05.04.2014, the petitioner failed to report for duty within the prescribed tinre limit. The desertion order clearly indicated that "if the petitioner had any intention of joining duty, he should report before respondent No.4 within a period of two months _- .* 5 sN,l W.P.No.28190 of 2O21 from the date of desertion or within one month from the date of issue of the said order, whichever is later." However, despite this reasonable opportunity, the petitioner did not report for duty, and therefore, is not entitled to the relief sought in the present writ petition.

8. Division Bench of this Court vide Judoment dated 28.01.2016 in W.P.No.38O57 of 2015, at para No.11, observed as under: 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 1B-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 Aoex Co urt held that in a if alleqation of unauthorized DeDartmental oroce edi no. absence from dutv is made, the disciplinarv authoritv is reout red to Drove that the absence is wilful. in absence of such findino, the absence wi ll not amount to misconduct. Absence from dutv wit h o t anv aDolication or orior permission mav amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not alwavs mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control Iike illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure oF devotion to duty or his behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. The above decision squarely applies to the instant case. Here, the petitioner failed to establish firstly that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent exceeding one year without applying for leave and secondly, such unauthorized absence was wilful. Therefore, the impugned order passed under G.O.Ms.No.122 General Administration (OP.V) Department dt: 01.05.2014 was 6 SN,J W. P.No.2819O of 2021 rightly set aside by the Tribunal. We see no 'eason to interfere with the sa id order.

9. Thq_/lpex Court iudoment dated 15.0:1.,2012 reported in 20L2 S(lC in "KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMlii{ v UNION OF INDIA ANIr ANOTHER", in oarticular, the r.laras 16 to 25, observecl as under: 16, The question whether 'unauthorised absence from ,Juty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is willful or because of compelling c irc u nr sta nces. L7. If the absence is the result of compellinq circunrstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be ruillful.

18. Absence from duty without any application or prior permis;ion may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventu llities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospita lisation, etc., but in such ctrse the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devoticn to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauth,rrised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authorir.y is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absenct) of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

20. In the present case the Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evirJence though held that the appellant was unauth()risedly absent from duty but failed to hold the is willful; the disciplinary authority as also the absenc€ 1 SN,J W.P.No.2819O of 2021. Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.

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. Biilani vs. Union of india and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC BB wherein this Court held: "It 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 Iike a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant Facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with."

22. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was willful, no such finding has been given by the Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority. Though the appellant had taken a specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to sign the attendance register and also brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3rd October, 1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, lD, SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of Telephone calls dated 29th September, 1995, etc. but such deFence and evidence were ignored and on the basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty. It SN,J w.P.No.2819O of 2021

23. Mr. P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanprrr, who was the complainant and against whom appellant alleged bias refused to appear before the Inquiry OfFicer in spite of service of summons. Two other witnesses, Shri .livrani and Shri L.N. Thakkar made no statemL:nt against the appellant, and one of them stated tnat he had no knowl,:dge about absence oF the appellarlt. Ignoring the 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, dismissed the appeal with following uncalled for observation: 'The appellant even avoided the basic training required for the job and asked IAD Ahmedabad to s;end all the training papers for his training at IB l-raining School, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) to his residence at Ahmedabad. 'An untrained officer is of rro worth to the department'."

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority, affirmed by the Appellate Authority; Centrarl Administrative Tribunal and l{igh 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 l'or absence from duty for a certain period, we are nct remitting the proceeding to the disciplinary authority for any further action. Further, keeping in view tlre 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.

10. A bare perusal of the order impugned, dated 20.03.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 does not indicate any clear 9 sN.J W,P.No.28190 of 2021 finding recorded against the petitioner after conducting due enquiry in accordance to law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the desertion of duty by the petitioner was deliberate and willful. Hence, this court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 3'd respondent herein. 11, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The fact as borne on record that the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner's representations dated 1O.06.2O20 and 05.O5.2021, seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable had not been considered as on date, 10 SN,J W.P.No.28190 of 2021 Without qoino into the merits of the ca se and w th of the learned counsel aopearirrq on behalf of the oetitioner and the learned Assistarrl. Government Pleader aptrearinq on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is rlisposed of, dire ino the 3'd resoondent to re- examine t 1e reasons for the petitioner's period of absence, dlilv considerinq the request of thr:r petitioner for reinstatem€rnt into service in accordance to Iaw, in tncr esofn tural u ti e o aoorooriate orders within a oeriod of eic,ltt (8) weeks m t with the e orovidinq a n ooportunitv of personal h tf,A_fIfgl_te__lhg petitioner arnd dulv com municate the detision to the Det tione r's reouest for Detitioner. Dertaininq to reinstatement into service dulv considerino the view of the Apex (:ourt in the i doments ( referred to and extracted above) dulv reconsiderinq the decision of the 3'd n a

20.o .2014 im u ned in the e writ petitiorr. However, there shall be no order as to costs, II SN,J W.P.No.2E190 of 2021 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I SD/ P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

2. a e Department,

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The lnspector General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. The Additional Commandant HAC of Commandant, IV BN.APSP, Mamnoor Lines, Warangal District. The Commandant, lV BN APSP, Mamnoor Lines, Warangal, Warnagal District. The ln-charge Officer, lV BN APSP, Lilamnoor Lines, Amberpet Unit, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate IOPUC] Two CC to The GP for Services(Home), High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] Two CD Copies E o. o_ To TJ PVL w HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1 51A9t12025 ORDER WP.No.28190 of 2021 tt: S irl ( ,) l;; ?/ 0 4 l,liu ?tr25 .: 1, - - l l.r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\.