POLINATI SRAVAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(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 11/7/2016. 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, dtd. 12/6/2017, issued by the 5th respondent, who appears to have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer on 1/11/2016. The order was based on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty without any leave or permission from 30/12/2014 to 19/1/2015 (forenoon). On 3/8/2016, the 4th respondent issued an order of suspension from service. Thereafter, on 1/11/2016, the 4th respondent appointed the 5th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The 5th respondent submitted a report on 3/3/2017 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 12/7/2016, 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, dtd. 22/1/2015, and the petitioner acknowledged the same on 25/1/2015. Since the petitioner did not report for duty even after being given a reasonable opportunity through proceedings dtd. 22/1/2015, 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 11/2 years, he was placed under suspension vide D.O.No.756/2015 in C.No.5597/A8/2016, dtd. 3/8/2016. The 4th respondent also served a Memorandum of Charge on the petitioner vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dtd. 3/8/2016, 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, dtd. 1/11/2016, to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledged the appointment and appeared before the 5th respondent on 28/2/2017, expressing no objection to the conduct of the oral enquiry. The petitioner also opted for a personal hearing on 3/3/2017 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 dtd. 3/3/2017 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 2/8/2016 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, dtd. 4/9/2003, vide D.O.No.475/2017 in C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dtd. 12/6/2017, 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.