Telangana High Court
Dr. I. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, vs The Director Of Medical Education, on 5 August, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P.Nos.17735 of 2024 and 11675 of 2025
% 04-08-2025
# Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goud.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
Director of Medical Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad
and others.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.V.Krishnaiah
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Services-II
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.(2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 817
2.2022 Law Suit (SC) 1486
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
W.P.Nos.17735 of 2024 and 11675 of 2025
Between:
# Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goud.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
Director of Medical Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad
and others.
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 04.08.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.17735 of 2024 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 of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II
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 :-
“….. to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one
in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India declaring the departmental proceedings
initiated against the petitioner by the 1st respondent by
Proceedings Rc.No.3899/V1C/2014, dated 29.10.2014
including the proceedings Rc.No.3899/V1C/2014, dated
13.11.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential
Memo No.5096/VC.2/2022-2, dated 26.07.2022 issued by
the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory,
malafide, void and without jurisdiction and set aside the
4same and issue consequential directions directing the
respondents to forthwith consider and promote the petitioner
as Associate Professor (Plastic Surgery) as per seniority along
with others, without reference to the proceedings Rc.No.
3899/V1C/2014, dated 13.11.2015 issued by the 1st
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 later he got
posting orders as Assistant Professor in the Department of Plastic
Surgery in Osmania Medical College in 2014. The petitioner is
fully eligible and qualified for being promoted to the post of
Associate Professor (Plastic Surgery), as he is the senior most
Associate Professor in Plastic Surgery under the jurisdiction of
the 1st respondent. However, the respondents are not
considering the case of the petitioner for promotion on the
ground of imposing punishment vide proceedings dated
13.11.2015, wherein the 1st respondent imposed the punishment
of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative
effect, besides treating the unauthorized absence from
06.05.2007 to 26.07.2014 as ‘dies-non’.
5
(ii) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vide Memo No.2348/VC/2/
2015-2, dated 10.05.2016, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the
order dated 10.05.2016, the petitioner again filed an appeal
before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, who inturn
rejected the appeal vide Memo No. 2348/VC-2/2015-3, dated
27.02.2020 without considering the contentions raised in the
appeal and without taking into consideration the findings of the
enquiry officer holding that framing the charges of unauthorized
absence from duty is not justified. Further aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government,
Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC) Department on
11.05.2022, who also rejected the appeal vide Memo
No.5096/VC.2/2022-2, dated 26.07.2022. Challenging the same,
the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the 1st respondent issued a charge memo on 29.10.2014 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 2010, the
respondents issued a posting order only in 2014. The petitioner
6
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 the
C.C.A. Rules appointed the Principal, Osmania Medical College
as an Enquiry Officer 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 1st respondent, without giving any reasons to differ with the
report of the Enquiry Officer 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 1st
respondent is not competent to initiate departmental proceedings
and imposition of punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade
increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated
13.11.2015 is without jurisdiction and contrary to C.C.A. Rules
and without differing with the Enquiry Officer’s report is held to
be bad by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the 1st respondent called particulars from the Unit
Officers to effect promotion to the post of Associate Professor in
7
various Departments, including the Plastic Surgery and even
though the competent authority sent particulars of the petitioner,
the 1st respondent is not considering the case of the petitioner for
promotion on the ground of imposing the punishment of
stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative
effect vide proceedings dated 13.11.2015, which is arbitrary,
illegal and violative 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, who 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 whether to recommend the case or not
and based on any Executive instructions, the authorities cannot
deny without there being any Statutory Rules giving power to the
authorities to defer or withhold promotion. Therefore, the
impugned punishment order is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that when the Enquiry Officer held that framing the
charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified, the
1st respondent cannot impose any punishment without giving
8
any valid reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the Government had rejected the
appeal/revision/review filed by the petitioner by non-speaking
order, without considering any of the contentions raised by the
petitioner, both 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 filed by the 1st 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 10.11.2006. He
was unauthorizedly absent from 01.06.2007. During his
absence, he joined the M.ch (Plastic Surgery) in the 2011 batch
from 01.08.2011 to 31.05.2014 at Gandhi Medical College,
Secunderabad. The Petitioner submitted a representation dated
9
26.07.2014 for reposting order as Assistant Professor Plastic
Surgery and, accordingly, he was posted at Osmania Medical
College, Hyderabad, vide proceedings Rc.No.3899/D4/2014,
dated 29.09.2014 of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has
initiated departmental proceedings on 29.10.2014 against the
petitioner for his unauthorized absence from 06.05.2007 to
26.07.2014 as per CCA Rules, 1991. 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/2014, dated 13.11.2015.
11. During the period of unauthorized absence, he also joined
the M.ch Plastic Surgery Course from 01.08.2011 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 rules in vogue.
12. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a
representation on 16.09.2010, but he joined in M.ch (Plastic
Surgery) over the period from 2011 to 2014. Later, vide his
10
representation dated 26.07.2014, sought reposting back in
service, duly informing of acquiring the Super Speciality
qualifications. Hence he was issued reposting orders in 2014 as
Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery pending departmental
action.
13. It is further contended that the 1st respondent, being the
competent disciplinary authority, has taken action against the
petitioner as postulated under Rule 21 sub-rule (2) of
A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991, which reads as under :-
“The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be
forwarded a copy of the report of the enquiry, if any, held by
the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority
is not the inquiry authority a copy of the report of the
inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for
disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority
on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall
be required to submit, if he desires, his written
representation of submission to the disciplinary authority
within fifteen days, irrespective of whether report is
favorable or not to the Government servant.”
14. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a
representation to the 3rd respondent requesting that he may be
exonerated from the punishment. The respondent authorities
11
examined the appeal of the petitioner and rejected vide Memo
dated 10.05.2016. The petitioner submitted another appeal to
consider the period from 2007 to 2011 as extraordinary leave and
the period from 2011 to 2014 as Study leave and waive the
punishment. The 3rd respondent vide Memo dated 27.02.2020
rejected the appeal, as there are no fresh grounds. Again, the
petitioner submitted another representation on 11.05.2022 to the
3rd respondent requesting to waive the punishment, which was
also examined and rejected vide Memo dated 26.07.2022.
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 view of imposing of punishment against
the petitioner, his candidature was not considered for promotion
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.08.1997. The 1st
respondent is competent to take administrative decisions,
including departmental action for the post of the petitioner, in
accordance with the CCA Rules, 1991. 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 Plastic Surgery without any prior permission or
intimation. The 3rd respondent, being the next appellate
12
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 annual 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, dated 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
the punishment orders issued during 2015. The authorities also
thrice confirmed that the 1st respondent being the competent
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 upon a Division Bench
decision of this Court in W.P.No.36516 of 2024, dated
03.02.2025, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJMATI
13
SINGH 1 and STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs.
RAJMATI SINGH 2.
18. 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
was 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 06.05.2007, 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 several years. After issuance of reposting
orders, the 1st respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.3899/
VIC/2014, dated 29.10.2014, framing the following charge
against the petitioner.
1
(2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 817
2
2022 Law Suit (SC) 1486
14
“That Dr. L. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, Assistant
Professor of Plastic Surgery, Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad is on unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f
06/05/2007 to bill he reported for duty due to which much
inconvenience is being caused to the hospital work and
patient car. This shows his lack of devotion to the
profession, thereby causing dislocation of hospital work,
patient care and teaching programme.
Statement of articles of imputation of unauthorized
absence of Dr has been on unauthorized from duty w.e.f
06.05.2007 to till due to which necessary inconvenience is
caused and the hospital work was badly affected and
causing dislocation of the work hospital.”
21. Pursuant to the above charge memo, the petitioner has
submitted his explanation on 23.12.2014 stating as follows :-
“My father suffered cerebral stroke in the month of
may 2007 and as I am the only son I needed to support him
with continuous medical care.
Due to being ignorant of rules and lack of proper
guidance I continued to be on absence up to 15-09-2010
during course of which I did not leave the country as I have
not even applied for passport so far.
I have reported on 16-09-2010 at the office of the
Director of Medical Education from the leave period
requesting to issue orders permitting me resume my duties
vide ref no.3, but for unknown reasons I did not receive any
information from you.
15
Meanwhile I was selected for admission in to super
specialty course (M.Ch. plastic surgery in Gandhi Medical
College vide ref. no.5 and I joined the course on 01-08-2011.
I represented again (second time) at the office of the
Director of Medical Education to take me to the service while
pursuing my super specialty course vide ref.4.But
unfortunately I have not even informed about the status of
my job.
During my super specialty course I was very much
regular to my duties & I worked to the satisfaction of my
professor & other senior staff vide Ref. no.6.
I passed my M.Ch. course in July 2014 vide ref.7 and
after representing for the third time I have got the reposting
orders from the Director of Medical Education posting as
assistant professor of plastic surgery at Osmania Medical
College on 29-09-2014 where I reported to duty on the same
day le. 29 09-2014. After i reported back to duty I have
been rendering continuous service without any leaves and
to the utmost satisfaction of my superiors till to date without
any adverse remarks.
I promise you to continue in government service till my
retirement and I will work with the same enthusiasm I have
been showing now.
I have been served with a charge memo vide memo
Rc no. 3899/V1C/2014, dated 29-10-2014 of The Director
of Medical Education, Telangana state, Hyderabad for
which I am here with submitting the explanation as stated
above.
16
Reply to charge 1
I was unauthorizedly absent from duty from
06-05-2007 due to my father’s ill health who suffered
cerebral stroke and I was constrained to keep away from
my duties since no other family member is there to look
after my old aged father. The relevant medical records are
enclosed for your kind reference vide ref. no2. Further I
would like to inform you that I am very much interested in
doing Government service to work in teaching hospitals to
serve poor and needy patients.
Reply to charge 2
I have not intentionally kept away from the hospital
work as my father was totally dependent on me and I was
to look after him in the daily needs of my father. And I
assure that I will continue in Government service till the end
of my retirement to serve poor & needy patients and in
teaching programmes to the students (under graduates &
post graduates).
I request you to consider my explanation on
humanitarian grounds which are facts and I request you to
drop further action against me in this regard duły
regularizing the leave period from 06-05-2007 to 31 07-
2011 as EOL on private affairs, and the period between 01-
08-2011 to 28-09-2014 as study leav which I shall be ever
grateful to you.”
22. Not satisfied with the above explanation of the petitioner,
the respondent authorities have appointed an Enquiry Officer
17
i.e., Principal, OMC, Hyderabad, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 20 of
APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, to enquire into the charges levelled
against the petitioner. He has completed the enquiry and 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 evidences
adduced in the case before me and in view of the reasons
given above, I hold that the finding for the charges
against Dr.L.Raja Kiran Kumar are given as follows:-
“Charge No.1 (a) Since the authority neither rejected his
applied leave from 06-05-2007 onwards, nor directed
to report back for duty and not processed the joining
reports submitted by him on 16-09-2010 and 13-11-
2013, I feel that framing the charges of unauthorized
absence from duty is not justified.
(b) In case, even though the charged officer not
submitted any leave applications, it is the
responsibility of the disciplinary authority/ appointing
authority to give a notice instructing him to join duty
since his residential address is available in the file.”
23. It is to be seen that after conducting a detailed enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer held that framing of charges of unauthorized
absence from duty is not justified. However, without even
looking into the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in the
18
enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice,
dated 24.08.2015, stating as follows :-
“Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goud is directed to show cause
within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo, as to
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on
the charge of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 06.05.2007 to
29.09.2014 which was held proved during the enquiry
failing which it will be construed that he has no explanation
to submit and further action will be taken based on the
material available.”
24. For the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has
submitted an explanation on 17.10.2015 stating as follows :-
“Charge no.1 (a). Since the authority neither rejected his
applied leave from 06-05-2007 onwards, nor directed to
report back for duty and not processed the joining reports
submitted by him on 16-09-2010 and 13-11-2013, I feel
that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from
duty is not justified.
(b).In case, even though the charged officer not submitted
any leave applications, it is the responsibility of the
disciplinary authority/appointing authority to give a
notice instructing him to join duty since his residential
address is available in the file.”
In the above context, I submit for your kind perusal that
the findings of the Enquiry Officer has declared that the
charges against me are not justified, where as, it has
19
mentioned in the show cause notice that the charges are
held proved.
Therefore I request the kind authority to drop the charges
framed against me and drop the further action basing on
the findings of the Enquiry Officer.”
25. It is surprising to note that before conducting disciplinary
proceedings or issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities have
not even gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which
are to the effect that :-
“Since the authority neither rejected his appeal
leave from 06.05.2007 onwards, nor directed to report
back for duty and not processed the joining reports
submitted by him on 16.09.2010 and 13.11.2013, I feel
that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from
duty is not justified.”
26. Furthermore, contrary to the findings in the enquiry
report, the 1st 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
findings 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 3rd respondent also, without looking into the findings of the
20
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 06.05.2007 onwards, the authorities have
to consider or reject the leave application or direct the petitioner
to join duty. Without doing anything from 06.05.2007 till
initiation of the departmental proceedings in the year 2014, the
respondents slept over the representation of the petitioner, which
is nothing but unlawful and against the principles of natural
justice and also a violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
28. 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
21
duty immediately. In the instant case, the only mistake
committed by the petitioner is that he has not applied for leave
immediately. After some time, he made an application seeking
leave on account of the ill-health of his father. When the
petitioner made an application seeking leave, the respondents
ought to have accepted or rejected the same based on the
circumstances. But, without doing so, the respondents have
neglected the leave application for several years and later
imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade
increments with cumulative effect, which is illegal and
unconstitutional and also 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, who
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 Officer
22
recorded a finding in the enquiry report stating that the action of
the respondents is not justified, contrary to the said finding, the
1st respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner stating
that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved and
imposed the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual
grade increments with cumulative effect, which indicates the
negligent and improper administration by the authorities.
30. Another unfortunate thing is that in the counter filed by the
1st respondent, there is no whisper about conducting of enquiry
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondents are
only contending that there is a delay of nine years in approaching
this Court seeking promotion without reference to the imposition
of punishment vide proceedings dated 13.11.2015. It is not
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 lastly
when the 3rd respondent passed final 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 cannot be
accepted. The 3rd respondent has rejected the appeal on
23
26.07.2022 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed
W.P.No.17735 of 2024 on 05.07.2024. 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 filing 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. relied 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 5½ years. In the said case, after dismissal from
service on 09.04.2019, the petitioner herein had approached the
Court with a delay of 5½ 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
24
negligence of administration by the authorities, no one can be
made to suffer.
33. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS VS.
RAJMATI SINGH 3 , relied upon by the learned Government
Pleader for Services, the Apex Court held as follows :-
20. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the facts in this
case, coupled with the legal principles cited above, we are satisfied
that the claim of the respondent is stale, highly belated, time barred,
and the same ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal or
the High Court after a span of over three decades.
22. Having held so, let us look into the conduct of the appellants as
well. It is true that the State Information Commission had no authority
to intrude into a service dispute and pass an inappropriate order like
dated 05.03.2009. The Tribunal, however, corrected that error and
turned down the respondent’s claims being barred by limitation. That
order was nullified by the High Court vide impugned Judgment dated
02.07.2012. The appellants sat silent and accepted that verdict
without any murmur. The said Judgment has, in a way, attained
finality, though it is legally unsustainable. Having accepted that
Judgment, the appellants ought to have been prepared to face the next
consequence which fell on them when the Tribunal directed them to
decide the respondent’s representations afresh. This led to the revival
of a ghost claim after over 30 years. The appellants were expected to
immediately understand the implications and consequences of events
3
2022 Law Suit (SC) 1486
25as they unfolded but they remained silent on the judgment dated
02.07.2012. Under these circumstances, the appellants are also
partially responsible for engendering hope in respondent at a juncture
when she was nearing the age of superannuation.
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
forum.
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
application. But, for the reasons best known to them, the
respondents kept silent on the representation for a long time.
Finally, the authorities allowed the petitioner to join duty in the
year 2014.
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
26
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
circumstances, the major punishment of stoppage of seven
annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed by the
respondent authorities is highly irrational and the same is liable
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 modified, and it is accordingly
27
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.342, General
Administration Department, dated 04.08.1997.
40. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.17735 of 2024 and W.P.No.11675 of
2025 are disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
05.08.2025
Note:
L.R.Copy to be marked
(B/o)
Prv