Veeravalli v. Vara Prasad, S/o V Subba Rao, aged about

Counsel for the Petitiorrer: SRI PRAVEEN BONKURI Counsel for the Resporrdents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.4 622 of 2 o22 ORDER Heard Sri Praveen Bonkuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7.

2. The oetition r filed the writ oetition seekinq the follo ln reli f "... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to the orders passed by the Respondent No.2 in RC No.189/T212022 dated 21-1,0-2022 along with consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent in DO No.11726, No.HCP/BIIB1/001.512020-22 dated 03-11- 2022 by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment of Removal from Service without considering the explanation of Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and u nconstitutiona I and consequently set aside the same by reinstate the petitioner into his service and to pass such order or other orders as this Honble court deems fit and proper in circumstances of the case and grant...". 1 2 SN. J \vP,12622 l02l 3. The car;e of the petitioner in brief, is that thc petitioner was apFroinlld as Police Constable in Civil ,ride orrler dated

30.01.1995 i'nd completed 26 years. The petitiorrer ivas placed under suspe"rsion vide order dated OB.O7.2O2l ,)n the allegatjons that the letit oner went on leave from 18.03.2020 to .10.03.2020 but failerl to report for duty on 2I.03.2020 and reprt:;ted back after 15 months with Medical Certificate and an in,luir/ has been conducted arrd the charges were proved. The I)isciplinary Authority awi_. rded punishment of removal from servicr: .vide its order dated l+.02.2022. The petitioner,s further case i!; that the disciplinary :ruthority has not considered [ht: €xplanation submitted bV, the petitioner but inflicted major p..na t), on him which is against the decision of the Supremer (_ourt of India reported in 2t'_\2 (1) Decision foday (SC) pagt) -45 ar c in 2011 (3) ALD 641. 3 (i). The pr-.titioner's further case is that on 0{).03,:1022 the petitioner filer: an appeal before the 2nd respondert, t.ater.the petitioner alsr; earlier filed W.p. No.39949/2022 before Utis Court and durirrg t're pendency of the said writ petition . the 2nd respondent re jected the appeal filed by the petitior,er ,,ile order dated 21.LCt.2.i22. This Court directed the respondert No.2 to J SN, J wP 42622 2022 consider the petitioner's appeal dated 09.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders, however, the respondent No.3 without considering the submissions of the petitioner, rejected the appeal vide its order dated 03.11.2022. Aggrieved by the decisions of the 2nd and 3'd respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by fillng the present writ petition.

4. PERU ED THE RE CORD (A) The rel eva nt oortion of the order

31.10.2 O22 oassed bv th is Court in W.P. N o. 39949 of 2022 in oarticular oara No.5 is extracted hereund er "5. Without going into the merits of the case and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner appeal, dated 09'03'2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner"' (B) The im D uon do rderl sue d hv resDo ndent o.2 s ated 2L.1.O.2022 to the vide Rc.No tagtr2/ 2022. d Detitioner is extracted under: iI 4 SNI i\ I'] 12622 l{)ll Rc.No tag lT 212022, Dated : 21-rUt-2O22 Ref :- Sub:- Police - Appeal petition of Sri V.\,. S.l'. pr a sad, ex-pC 7771 of Kamatipura PS, Hyderabad i:gz,inst the penalty )f "Removal from Service" - Rejected Ort ers issued - teg. r. Proceedings D.O. No.1223 (HCD/'81l81 ,tOt5/2020- 22) DATED 14.02.2022 of the Comrnission lr of police, 'l yderabad City. 2. Appeal petition dt 09.03.2C22 or S-i V.V.S.V. i).asad, ex-PC 77LL of Kamatipura pS, H.,ldera;ad. l. Letter No.HCP/B1l81/0015/2020-22, dt : 28.4.2022 rrt the CP, Hyd. **** ORDER Sri V.V V. Prasad, PC-7711 of Kamatipura pS, Hy( erabad was declared 3s Dcserter" w.e.f 2t-3-2020 vide D.O.N0.5011 r,/ the DCp, South Zone, Fl y,derabad for his unauthorized absencr: from luties. 2. An arti,:r e of charge under Rule 20 of TSCS (C(.&A) I{u|es,1991 was handed upon him on the following delinquenc;,:- "Exhibit,-.d gross negligence and irresponsible attitude towards his legitimate duties by absenting hirnself unauthorisedly w.e.f. 2L-3-2OZO without any leave c,r prior permission, failed to follow the sick procedure ;rs laid down ir TPM, which is most unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Thereby, he had willfully contravened Rule-3 (1) && (2) of TCS (Conduct) Rutes, 1964,,.

3. He ackncwledged the charge memo on 23-5-202' an J submitted his explanatio't on 5-6-2021 denying the charges leveled aqa nst him.

4. The Acldl, Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills, HyderaDz d who was appointed as I,rquiry Authority had conducted the OE anrl submitted his findinrTs h,rlding the charges as ,,proved,' a{lainst t rt: charged Officer. 5. He was _aken on duty and placed him under s usp, )nsion vide D.O. No..1820 dt.8-7-2021 for exhibiting gross rnisc lrduc[ by 5 SN, J wP 42622 2022 remaining unauthorisedly absented from duties w 'e'f ' 2t-3-2020 to 29-6-202t. 6. After going through the charge memo, OE records and final explanation of the charged officer, the CP, Hyderabad was awarded him the penalty of "Removat from Service"' The absence period w.e.f. 21-3-2020 to 29-6-2021 treated as "Leave without Pay" and the suspension period w.e.f. B-7 -2021 to L4-2-2O22 (till the date of removal from service) was treated as "Not on Duty" vide D'O' No' 1223, dt. 14-2-2022. 7. Aggrieved by the above orders, he has submitted an appeal petition to the DGP, TS, Hyderabad to set aside the penalty' I have gone through the appeal petition of the appellant and the B. connected PR records carefully and minutely' Even after relaxation of COVID related lockdown on 29-07 -2o2o, he did not report for duty nor did he respond to calls made to his two mobile numbers by hls higher- ups nor to SMSS. Even a memo was issued to him on his personal email ID, but there was no response. He did not produce any medical record of his admission or treatment in Vijaya Hospital for COVID' except for a medical prescription of a cardiologist and a physician' He returned to Hyderabad In October, 2020 itself' The version of the appellant that he was admitted in Sai Sanjeevani Hospital from 13-11- 2020to15-03-202lisfalseasthesaidhospitalrecordclearly mentions that he was admitted in the hospital on 13-11-2020 and was discharged on 15-11-2020. If he was reallv sufferino from ill ced re, rt edl er her h e n e rejected. o Lo e b o a o k n n r h f r Sd/- M. Mahendar ReddY IPS 6 SN. J i\ I, 12612 2021 DIRECTOR C;ENERPL OF POLICE (C) fhe imouqned order issued bv resporrdent No.3 vide D.O. Nrt.71726N o.HCP /BL /B L/OO L5/ 2Ct20. 22, dated 03.11. 2 o22 to the oetitioner is extra cted hert: u n dr3r: OR ER Sub: "IYDERABAD CITY POLICE - Appeal petton of Sri '/ V-S.V. Prasad, ex-pc 77lt of k amirt pura pS, l'iyderabad against the penalty o. ,Rer'.-.,,rual From :;ervice" - Rejected by the DGp, TS, n rcteiaOaO _ llounter Orders - issued. Ref : - 1 , This office proceedings D.O. No.12.l-], dt : z .O2.2022, .i .His Appeal petition dt : 09.03.2022. 3. proceedings Rc.No.189/T2/2022, daterj 21 70.2022 of tre DGp, TS, Hyderabad** ORDER: Sri V.V. ,/. prasad, pC_771I of Kamatipura pS, Hvd: .abad has submitted an r\ppeal petition to the Director Gene,ral of police, TS, Hyderabad vide reference 2nd cited against the :unislrment of "Removal fron- 5"ru au,, with immediate effect imortse d o I him vide D.O. reference [.t cited. The Ap[r:llate Authority i.e., the DGp, TS, Hyderabad vide proceedinEs 3"' cited. have gone through the appeal peti ion of the appellant .rnrJ tire connected pR records carefully and ninr t:ly. Even after relaxirtio, of COVID related lockdo wn on 2g_Ot _2tr2O, he did not report for dtrti, po'. did he respond to calls made tc trrs two mobire numbers b/.is higher-ups nor to SMSs. Even a merno wa: ssued to him on his pers lnal email ID, but there was no response. lr: did not produce ar y nrcdrcal record of his admission or treatrlent n Vijaya Hospital for' (.O\, ID. except for a medical prescription of a c:r.diologist and a physici;:n, He returned to Hyderabad in Octob€rr, 2c2O itself. The version of the appellant that he was admitted in Sai S an.]eevani 7 SN, J w 42622 2022 Hospital from 13-11-2020 to 15-03-2021 is false as the said hospital record clearly mentions that he was admitted in the hospital on 13-11- 2020 and was discharged on 15-11-2020. If he was reallv sufferino from ilt health he could have reDorte before the off icer concerned after the relaxation of the Lockdown and obtained lear flra+ ha cir-Iz nrccnnr+ absented for the duties unauth orisedlv and there are no valid qround$ in the aooeal Detition. Hence, the aDoeal oetition is considered and rejected. A copy of the Chief Office Proceedings intended to the individual in original is enclosed herewith. re. Hence at is ]rar +[ra nrnrc -c d Acknowledge receipt of the order along with C.O. Proceedings. Encl : (C.O. Proceedings dt. 2l-70-2022) M. Ramesh, IPS., for Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad To Sri V.V.S.V. Prasad, EX-PC 77lL Kamatipura PS. Hyderabad (Through : The Inspector of Police, Kamatipura PS, Hyderabad). (D) Counter a davit has been on behalfof resDondents in oarticularlv Dara Nos.3O, 31 and 32 are extracted hereunder: "3O, The High Court in its orders dated 31-10-2022 in WP No' 39949/2022 filed the petitioner has passed the following orders:- "Without going into the merits of the case and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of , directlng 8 SN. J NP 126)2 2022 resprln( ent No.2 to consider the petitioner appea , dated 09.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordar ce with larv, a:; expeditiously as possible. preferably ,.ryitrin ;r teriod of fc'ur (04) weeks from the date of receipl. o'th(: order, after r1 rrng a fair opportunity of hearing to the pr t tioner and cc,rnmunicate the same to the petitioner. r\cccr<lingly, this ,rvr , petition is disposed oF. Miscellaneous a[)plic al.ion, if any oer ding, shall stand closed. No order as [o r:ost:;".

31. In_ this reqard, it is resoectfullv submitted that ADDeal Petition !a-tl:d 09-O3-2O22 filed bv the Detitioner vi, s alreadv the Director G neral of Police, Telanoana. reiected b Hvderabad vide proceedinq dt., 2[-LO-2O22 before lssuance of the Hon'blq H iqh Court orders. The same ord.ers were communicatr:d to the petitioner vide this office Orders D.O.No.11726, dated O3-!L-2O22 and the liame was acknowledq e:d bv the Detitioner. 32 Tela noa OA_I Rules, 119_1_. the Governnrent for revtst period of o-n_e: vear after appell p€tition Further, as Der the orovisions of rule 4Ct t21 1;;'1 og livil Services (Classif ication, Control 8r Appeal) he etitioner can refer a revision ri on before he order of _oepa-!!g within a is disposed off. But ins;tead of doino so, the Detitioner aDDr(,ached this H on'ble 9OgJt without availing the existino ciannel of revision and a lternat e remedv bei no available to him and l'iled W.P. No.42622/2('r.22 in the H on'ble Hioh Court arrd-os!-thc punishment_,rf "Remova! from Service" imposed on him bv the 3'd resoond,ent, subseouent to rejection of his appr loe ition 2"d rc-.;po nd ent". 9 SN, J wP 42622 2022 DISCUS ION A ND CON c SION:-

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner mainly contends that the specific directions issued in the order dated 31.10.2022 passed in W.p. No. 39949 of 2O22 and the specific direction of giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was totarry ignored and the appear of the petitioner dated 09.03.2022 preferred against the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect vide proceedings DO No.1223, No. HCP/BI/BL/0075/2020-22, dated 14.02.2022 was mechanicaily rejected in clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner herein is entiUed for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

6. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the order of this Court is dated 31.10.2022 passed in W.p. No.39949 of 2022, whereas the appeal petition dated 09.03 .2022 filed by the petitioner was rejected much earlier to the passing of orders of this Court dated 21.10.2022 itself and therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is to prefer revision before the Government for revising the order of penalty. However, without l0 SN. J \YP 42622 )022 prefer.ing the revision the petitioner apprrti:ched flre Court by filing the Ft-esent writ petition.

7. rt i ,ertinent to refer to the iudq menl: of the Division Bench of A oex Co urt, dated 2O. o4.202L reportr:lcl in (2 021) 6 scc 771- in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal_ Pradesh, which referred _ to Whirl ool Coroorati(Ln Vs. Reqistrar of Trade Mark s (rjlported in (1998L r_ sCC1)a nd further th rcitq-aled a iud qme SC grqe 8O1 in Maoadh:$-l Iq ar and Enerov imited Vs. State of Bih r and Others_dat led 24.09.20 21 and tn the id iudgment it is tre rted in (2 21) SCC O nline said vi evr had been !_Iudqes) in observed _ at DarANo.28 as under : 28^ T,\e principles of law which emerget are that: (i) 'rte power under Articte 226 of the Cot.;titution issue writs can be exercised not ottlV for r: tfor-6s7nsn7 of fundamental rights, but fitr- any other p t rpose as well; (iit _ The Hish Court has the d iscre tion not to ttertain a writ oetition, One of the ,tggtrictio!!s 'aced on the Dower of the Hioh Cou,rt is where a n e ffe c t i v e a I t e r n a t e re m e d v i s _?L!Ajla_b!-e_! eJ he aqqrieved Derson: PJ (iii.l t:: <ceptions to the rule of alternate remedy e rise where ('a ) the writ petition has been filed fctr lhe enforcement SN, J wP 42622 2022 of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;_or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarity, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; cribes th (v) When a riqht is created bv a statute. which itself ed or the risht or liabili,ty, resort m t be had ular statutorv remedv before invokino the DA discretionarv remedv under Article 22 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutorv rem edies is a ruIe of olicv, convenience and discret,'ion; and r enforcin (vi) In cases. where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with." This Court o ines that the Dresent case falls under Dara No.28 Clause (ii) & Clause (v) of the Aoex Court ud m nt ref r n ex r dab V

8. This Court takes note of the fact borne on record that the appeal preferred by the petitioner on O9.03.2022 against the order of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary Authority had been *"- 2 SN, J wP 42622 2022 reiectecl on 21.10.2022 by the 2"d respondent and the said order was confirmed by the 3.d responrlent on 03.11 .2022. The petitioner instead of preferring a revisio,n as provided under the rules approached this Court by filing the present Writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner in view of availabitity of effective atternative remedy to the petitioner, ctuly taking into cons;ideration the observations of the A pex Court in the judgrnent, dated 2O.O4.2O21reported in 1102.1 (6) SCC 771 (referred to and extracted above) e. Iaki n tn o o st er ti n (a) The aforesaid facts and crrcumsta nces of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learnr:d counsel of the petitioner, thr: learned Pleader for Home, appearing on aPpearing on behalf Assistant Government behalf of rr:spondents, (c) -fhe relevant portion of the order dated 31.LO.2O22 passed by this Court in W.p. No..i99 49 of 2022 in particular para No.5, (referred to and extractr:xl above), t3 SN. J wP 42622 2022 (d) The contents of the impugned order issued by respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.189/T212022, dated 2L,LO.2O22 to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), (e) The contents of the impugned order issued by respondent No.3 vide D.O.No.11726 No.HCP/BLIBL/ OOLS/2O2O-22, dated O3.LL.2O22 to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), (f) The contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents in particular para Nos.3O, 31 and 32, (referred to and extracted above), (s) The iudoments of the Apex Court ( referred to a nd extracted above aqain enlisted below:- ) i) (2o21) 6 SCC77L ii)(1998) 8 SCC 1 iii) (2021) SCC Online SC page 801 The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer a revision before the Government I I against the punishment of "removal from service" with immediate effect imposed upon the petitioner vide I4 a SN. J \NP 12622 2022 proceedin'Js, dated I4.OZ.2OZ2 of the C.mnrissioner of Police, Hyderabad City police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, which had been upheld vide order, dated 21, 1.O.2O22 of the 2nd respondent and vide order, dated O3 71.2022 of the 3'd res;pondent, as per the provisions of llule 40 (2) (ii) of Telangana civit services (crassification, controt & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and upon petitioner prefi:rring the said revisi,cn, the ltt respondent is directr:d 1t:o consider the same vvithin a period of four (4) weeks front the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accord:rncr:l to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by ll.oviding a reasonable opportunity of personal heilring to the petitioner and pass appropriate orclers and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs, As a sequel, the miscellaneou:; petitions, if a'1y !g!l1j!9, f Ir qlglryIllegllQ n s h a I I a I so $e!rj s I qx d- SD/. ASSI //TRUE COPYII r/ANl SWAMY K.E}HA' STANl TIEGISTRAR $ ECTION OFFICER ]fg Princinal Sec retary, Home Department, Secretariat Eluilding,;, The State ot lelangana, l.1l derabad. The Director C;en:ral of Police. for Telanqana State, State Folrcr: Hear!-quarte"s at l.akdikapul. Hyderabad The Commissrorr,rr of Pojice, Fiyderabad City police, Basher:rbarth, Hyderabad I|," ?V Corrnrissioner of police, South Zone, Hyderabact The Asst. Con nrr;sioner of police, Cnarminii Oi'uision South Zc,ne, Hyderabad To, 1 2 3 4 5 \ l,lllttfl's:tiqt'"*'ft ig+"*l+ljli*:*;*:::" HyderabadIOUT] 10.Two CD CoPies TJ BS W HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2510412025 , I ORDER WP.No.42622 of 2022 ,_?-- o;, in: SiI Y t /..1 J 2 1 ,rllt ;0i5 z 'k .rl '_L::- - \ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o\J (