Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Polinati Sravan Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 March, 2025
APHC010314422021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 19312/2021
Between:
Polinati Sravan Kumar ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PULIPATI RADHIKA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the
proceedings vide D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/0EPR/2016, dt.12.06.2017
th
issued by the 4 respondent in imposing punishment of removal
from service of the petitioner with immediate effect and further
nd rd
confirming the same by the 2 and 3 respondents is illegal and
arbitrary and violation of procedure contemplated under Rule 20
of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and consequently direct the
respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner into service as Civil
Police Constable (PC) with immediate effect with all service
benefits….”
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as
Civil Police Constable (PC) in 2003. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted
to the Anti-Narcotics Squad (ANS) in Kakinada after successfully completing
police training at PTC, Vizianagaram. Later, the petitioner was transferred to
the Uppalaguptam Police Station in East Godavari, within the Amalapuram
sub-division, where the petitioner worked for about a year. In 2014, the
petitioner was again transferred to the ANS in Kakinada. While working in the
ANS, the petitioner suddenly became bedridden on 30.12.2014. The
petitioner’s wife then took him to Janagam in Karimnagar District, where he
was treated by Dr.Rajam, Medical Officer at the Public Health Centre, from
30.12.2014 to 15.10.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner returned to Kakinada
and received treatment from Dr.Vadrevu Ravi and Dr. Palanki Seetaramaiah
from 16.10.2015 to 11.07.2016. While so, a Police Constable from Kakinada
came to the petitioner’s house and served a deserter order vide
D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017, issued by the 5th
respondent, who appears to have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer on
01.11.2016. The order was based on the ground that the petitioner was
absent from duty without any leave or permission from 30.12.2014 to
19.01.2015 (forenoon). On 03.08.2016, the 4th respondent issued an order of
suspension from service. Thereafter, on 01.11.2016, the 4th respondent
appointed the 5th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The 5th respondent
3
submitted a report on 03.03.2017 to the 4th respondent. However, the 4th
respondent, without verifying the Minutes submitted by the 5th respondent,
confirmed the Enquiry Officer’s report without examining the substance of the
enquiry or providing any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations
made in the writ petition and stated that while the petitioner was working in the
Anti-Naxalites Squad in Kakinada, he was absent from duty starting from
30.12.2014 without any leave or permission from his superior officers. The
petitioner did not inform his superiors about his illness, whereabouts, or the
treatment he was undergoing at the Urban Health Center in Jangson, formerly
in Karimnagar District, now in Jangaon District, Telangana State, from
30.12.2014 to 15.10.2015. Subsequently, from 16.10.2015 to 12.07.2016, the
petitioner received treatment from Dr.Vadrevu Ravi and Dr.Palanki
Seetaramaiah in Kakinada. It is further stated that the 4th respondent declared
the petitioner a deserter vide D.O.No.51/2015 in L.R.No.46/A5/2015, dated
22.01.2015, and the petitioner acknowledged the same on 25.01.2015. Since
the petitioner did not report for duty even after being given a reasonable
opportunity through proceedings dated 22.01.2015, which directed him to
appear before the 4th respondent within one month to join duty, and as he
appeared before the 4th respondent only after more than 1½ years, he was
4
placed under suspension vide D.O.No.756/2015 in C.No.5597/A8/2016, dated
03.08.2016. The 4th respondent also served a Memorandum of Charge on the
petitioner vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 03.08.2016, which the petitioner
acknowledged on the same day. The 4th respondent appointed the 5th
respondent as the Inquiring Authority vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated
01.11.2016, to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner
acknowledged the appointment and appeared before the 5th respondent on
28.02.2017, expressing no objection to the conduct of the oral enquiry. The
petitioner also opted for a personal hearing on 03.03.2017 and submitted his
Written Statement of Defence to the 5th respondent, duly admitting his
absence from duty starting 30.12.2014 without leave or permission. The 5th
respondent submitted the minute dated 03.03.2017 to the 4th respondent,
holding the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. After reviewing
the entire record of the oral enquiry, the 4th respondent awarded the
punishment of removal from service, treating the period of absence from
30.12.2014 FN to 02.08.2016 FN as Leave Without Pay (LWP) in terms of
Rule 18 of the Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms.No.260, General
Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 04.09.2003, vide D.O.No.475/2017
in C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017, as the petitioner had absented
himself from duty for a continuous period exceeding one year, following the
procedure laid down in the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.
5
4. Heard Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 5th respondent, who is the
Enquiry Officer in my case, did not examine or even review the medical
certificates submitted by the petitioner, nor did he consider the other medical
documents supporting the petitioner’s ill-health during that particular period.
Furthermore, the 5th respondent failed to take any steps to examine any
witnesses on the petitioner’s behalf, including any doctors or any officer from
the Medical Board at Janagam, as well as the doctors at Kakinada who
treated the petitioner, in order to ascertain the truth. Without verifying all the
facts and without considering the explanation provided by the petitioner, the
4th respondent issued a termination order on 12.06.2017. She further submits
that the 4th respondent observed that the charged officer absented the duties
more than one year, as per Rule-18 of fundamental rule and as per
G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003, all the cases of unauthorized absence to
duty for continuous period exceeding one year the penalty of removal from
service shall be imposed on the Government Employee after duly following
procedure laid down in AP Civil Services (CC & A) Rules 1991. The 4th
respondent without following the procedure contemplated under the Rules as
well as procedure laid down in AP Civil Services (CC & A) Rules 1991 issued
6
the orders of punishment of removal is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be
set aside. She further submits that aggrieved by the order of the 4th
respondent dated 12.06.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd
respondent and requested to drop the penalty of removal from services, but
the 3rd respondent without considering the appeal grounds, simply rejected the
appeal on 30.11.2018 and confirmed the orders of the 4th respondent without
giving any independent reasons on the appeal, which is not valid and is liable
to be set aside. She further submits that against the orders passed by the 3rd
respondent, the petitioner preferred revision before the 2nd respondent on
21.01.2019 and the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 05.09.2019 confirmed
the orders of the 3rd respondent without giving any reasons.
6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
Chhel Singh vs. M.G.B.Gramin Bank Pali and others1, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex held as follows:
“12. The Division Bench has accepted that the inquiry stood vitiated by
disallowing the request of the appellant to summon the rest of the five
witnesses. For the said reason, the Division Bench has not interfered with
such part of the finding and order passed by the learned Single Judge
whereby the impugned order of termination dated 17th October, 1994 and
the Appellate Authority order dated 26th December, 1994 were quashed.
13. The order of termination being quashed by the High Court, in
absence of any observation and grounds to refuse the reinstatement, the
appellant automatically stood reinstated. Without reinstatement in service,
the question of further inquiry does not arise. There was no occasion for the
Division Bench of the High Court to direct further inquiry, without
reinstatement of appellant.
1
Civil Appeal No.6018 of 2014
7
15. From the plain reading of the charges we find that the main
allegation is absence from duty from 11.12.89 to 24.10.90 (approximately 10
and ½ months), for which no prior permission was obtained from the
competent authority. In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he
was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his
control; he never intended to contravene any of the provisions of the service
regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by
Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports
were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the
appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was wilful and deliberate. The
Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was
willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the
Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were
forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill
during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not
open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the
medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason and on
the ground of 24 days delay.”
7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the decision of this Court between D.Dundi Babu and
others vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal and others2, wherein this
Court held as follows:
“10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of
removal does not record that the applicant‟s unauthorized absence was
willful. He submits that in the absence of such a finding, the unauthorized
absence will not amount to any misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Railway
Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 (in short, the Rules 1966). He places
3
reliance in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India .
20. In Krushnakant (supra), Rule 3 (1) (ii) and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 came for consideration with
reference to the unauthorized absence of the government servant therein.
The said rule was the same as the present Rule 3 (1) (ii). The question for
consideration was whether „unauthorized absence from duty‟ amounts to
failure of devotion to duty or under Clause (iii), a behavior unbecoming of a
Government servant. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that such question
cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or
because of compelling circumstances.
21. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further held that, if the absence is the result
of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or
perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty
without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized
absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different
eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including
compelling circumstances beyond its control like illness, accident,2
Writ Petition No.40940 of 2015
3
Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012
8hospitalization, etc. but in such case, the employee cannot be held guilty of
failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Government servant.
22. In Krushnakant (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that in
a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty
is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is
wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.
In the said case, the disciplinary authority though recorded that the appellant
was unauthorizedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence is
wilful, it was held that the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate
Authority wrongly held the Government servant guilty. The order of dismissal
in that case and all the subsequent orders of affirmation were set aside by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
24. In the present case, the finding has been recorded with respect to
the applicant‟s unauthorized absence, but the disciplinary authority has
failed to record that the absence was wilful. In the absence of any such
finding, following the law as laid down in Krushnakant (supra), we hold that
the appellant was not guilty of the charge of failure to maintain devotion to
duty under Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
26. From the order of removal two things become evident i) the finding is
recorded with respect to the unauthorized absence of 321 days and because
of that the disciplinary authority held that the applicant failed to maintain
devotion to duty and contravened Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Rules 1966, and (ii)
the applicants‟ representation and the reasons for unauthorized absence
were not considered by observing that “whatever may be the reasons, mere
absenting for duty is not acceptable”. So in view of the disciplinary authority,
the reasons were not relevant for consideration. Mere absence for duty was
not acceptable. Whereas, we are of the view that it was only on
consideration of the reasons assigned for unauthorized absence, that it was
required to record the finding, if such unauthorized absence was wilful or not.
If it was not wilful there was no violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) i.e to maintain
devotion to duty. In the absence of such consideration and absence of a
specific finding that the unauthorized absence was wilful, the charge could
not be said to be proved.”
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the
above judgements, prays to allow the writ petition.
8. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while
reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, since the
petitioner himself opted for personal hearing and did not prefer for conduct of
oral enquiry and also submitted his written statement of defence to the 5th
respondent on 03.03.2017 duly admitting his absence for duty with effect from
30.12.2014 without leave or permission, examination of Medical Certificates
9
and the Doctors does not arise. He further submits that the petitioner after
acknowledged the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2016 of the 4th respondent,
submitted his further written statement defence to the 4th respondent simply
stating that he absented for duty due to illness, but he did not submitted any
medical certificates issued by any authorized medical officer for the period of
his absence for duty. He further submits that as the petitioner himself admitted
before the respondents 4 and 5 that absented for duty and as he did not follow
the prescribed procedure to avail medical leave in case of his sickness, the 4th
respondent awarded the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner.
He further submits that the 3rd respondent in R.O.No.443/2018 in C.No.27/
Appeal/2017, dated 30.11.2018, clearly stated the punishment awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority is justified as per Rule 18 of the Fundamental Rules and
G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003. He further submits that the 4th respondent
framed charges against the Petitioner vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated
03.08.2016 and also appointed the 5th respondent as Inquiring Authority vide
C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 01.11.2016 to conduct an Oral Enquiry against
the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledged the same and appeared before
the 5th respondent on 28.02.2017, but the petitioner himself opted for personal
hearing on 03.03.2017, submitted his Written Statement of Defence to the 5th
respondent duly admitting his absence for duty with effect from 30.12.2014
without leave or permission and hence, the 4th respondent awarded the
10
punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. Therefore, learned
Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Perused the record.
10. As seen from the Minutes proceedings dated 03.03.2017,
wherein it was observed that, “(C) The Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar,
PC 1734, did not prefer any defence documents or defence witnesses on his
behalf. (D)On 03.03.2017, the Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734,
appeared before the under signed and requested the under signed to hear his
version in persona and to dispose the Charges against him without any oral
Enquiry. At the request of the Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734,
the under signed obtained the Written defense Statement from the Charged
Officer on 21.02.2016 where in the Charged Officer stated that “while he
working in A.N.S, Kakinada, he fell in sickness due to illness of health. On that
he had not attended the duty. Due to which he had not attended the Duty from
30.12.2014 F.N to 19.01.2015 A.N (21 Days) without any Medical or ELFP. In
this connection the R.I. A.N.S to sent the report to the kind Supreintendent of
Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada through proper channel. Basing on
the report the kind Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada
declared him as “Deserter” vide D.O.No.51/2015 and L.R.No.46/A-5/2015,
dated 21.01.2015.”
11
11. It is also observed from the Minutes, wherein it was mentioned
that, “I have carefully gone through the Article of Charge framed against the
Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734 of A.N.S, D.P.O, connected
record placed before the undersigned in the Oral Enquiry and Written defence
statement of the Charged Officer.”
12. This Court further observed that, after issuing the above Minutes,
the 4th respondent has awarded the punishment of removal from service duly
treating the period of absence for duty as Leave Without Pay (LWP), which is
impugned in the present writ petition. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner
absent from duty for a long period due to ill-health. Moreover, he preferred an
appeal and revision and both were dismissed by way of rejection.
13. As seen from the impugned order dated 12.06.2017, wherein it
was observed that:
“Further, the charged officer absented for duties for more than one
year i.e. 30.12.2024 F.N to 02.08.2016 F.N. As per Rule 18 of
Fundamental Rules and as per G.O.Ms.No.260 Dt. 04.09.2003 all the
cases of unauthorized absence to duty for continuous period
exceeding “One Year” the penalty of removal from service shall be
imposed on the Government employee, after duly following the
procedure laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A)
Rules, 1991.”
14. On a plain reading of the above, it is observed that, the 4 th
respondent has issued on the proceedings, only on a perusal of the minute
submitted by the Inspector of Police, P.C.R, Kakinada. It clearly establishes
12
that, without going into the substance of the enquiry and without giving reason
and without applying his mind, intentionally issued the proceedings awarding
“Removal” from service. Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present
writ petition while declaring the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent as
illegal and arbitrary.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned
proceedings in D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017 issued
by the 4th respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, by affording a
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, and pass appropriate reasoned
orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date : 07-03-2025
BMS
[ad_1]
Source link