ANNABATHULA VEERA BALAJI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that he petitioner was appointed for the post of Armed Reserve Constable (PC3347) in the years 2009 and since then he discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner mother namely Smt. Veera Vani who was suffering for ill health and admitted in hospital and unfortunately died on 23/8/2016. As no one to see to look after the welfare of his mother, he prepared to go to job after completion of all death formalities of his deceased mother, Unfortunately the petitioner was suffered due to Severe Asthama. Hence, the petitioner has obtained medical treatment from Dr.M.Raghavendra Rao, MD, DYCD, FCCP(USA) from 5/9/2016 and he was stated that it requires prolonged medical treatment, for that the petitioner was under medication by taking complete bed rest. Thereafter the petitioner was cured from the Asthama and able to discharge his legitimate duties on 25/5/2017 i.e., 45 days prior to fit the petitioner duty. Hence the petitioner approached the 5th respondent on 25/5/2017 and explained his problems and requested him to take him for his duties. After considering the petitioner request and difficulties due to the petitioner absence for his legitimate duties, 5th respondent issued proceedings vide Order in DO.No. 459/2017 & 3227/A8/2017 dtd. 26/5/2017 by stating that taken the petitioner on duty with immediate effect and ordered to the Reserve Inspector, A.R.Kakinada to take him to duty and inform the date of joining to District Police Office immediately. Accordingly the petitioner went to the office of the Reserve Inspector, District Armed Reserve, Kakinada along with his friend namely Sri K.L.M.Prasad, Civil Police Constable bearing No. 2920 on 27/5/2017 and produced the order copy given by the 5th respondent before him and with a request to detail the petitioner for performing the duties. The Reserve Inspector was received the same and perused it and told to the petitioner that the said order copy not yet received in his office and instructed the petitioner come tomorrow. The petitioner has no option he left the office of the 6th respondent along with his friend on that day. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the said Reserve Inspector in his office on 29/5/2017 on the next day i.e., 28/5/2017 (fallen Sunday being holiday) in compliance of his instructions and requested for the same. The said Reserve Inspector silent for some time and then told to the petitioner that he will clarify the matter to the 5th respondent, since the petitioner was absent for duties for a long period. Accordingly, the Reserve Inspector has avidly delayed from day to day till 13/6/2017 under the reason best known to him. Finally on 14/6/2017 the Reserve Inspector expressed that the petitioner absence to duty exceeded one year. Moreover, Article of Charge under rule 20 was served against the petitioner, involving an oral enquiry and further the Reserve Inspector directed him to come after completion of oral enquiry.

(3.) The counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the contention of the petitioner without considering his explanation on 15/1/2018 the 5th respondent passed proceedings vide D.O.No.1621/2019 (C.No.21/OEPR/2017) dtd. 9/3/2019 by removing from the service after lapse of more than one and half year from the date of minutes of to this office and great injustice has been done to him by the Reserve Inspector Armed Reserve, Kakinada by cheating him and giving false guidance to him intentionally to spoil his future is not correct, as if the petitioner felt anything wrong with the Reserve Inspector Armed Reserve Kakinada there is every possibility and scope to the petitioner to approach the disciplinary authority to express his grievances to give further instructions if any to the Reserve Inspector Armed Reserve, Kakinada. But he has not done so and attributing Reserve Inspector as per his wish. Further his version that if he was taken into consideration of the said order with regard to taking him to duty on 26/5/2017 his absence period is only 11 months 15 days might be correct, if he really approached to report for duty, but he has not do so and claiming the same is only after thought. Even though he received orders for join into duty, he failed to join into duty and trying to gain sympathy and trying to blame others. The Unit Officer has no option to take action accordingly to the G.O.