P.SATYANARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned proceedings dtd. 7/12/2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in removing the petitioner from service as Office Subordinate at District Insurance Office, Medak at Sangareddy, as illegal, arbitrary and prayed for setting aside of the same and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to discharge his duties as Office Subordinate and pay the salary with effect from 10/7/2012 and also to treat the absence period on medical leave and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Subordinate under the control of respondent No.3 in the year 1991. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner was discharging his duties as Office Subordinate and it is claimed that he fell ill and was admitted to the hospital in the year 2008 and therefore, he had applied for medical leave with effect from 22/12/2008. Since the petitioner was not able to recover from his illness, he was extending the leave from time to time on medical grounds and after recovery from illness, he submitted his joining report on 30/6/2011 requesting the respondent No.3 to permit him to join duty. The petitioner claims to have submitted all the relevant medical certificates along with the said joining report. However, the respondent No.3 did not permit the petitioner to join his duty and subsequently, on submitting further joining report, the respondent No.3 permitted the petitioner to join duty with effect from 10/7/2012. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.3, however, failed to pay any salary for the said working period and instead, a show cause notice dtd. 25/5/2012 was issued by the respondent No.3 calling for his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated in terms of G.O.Ms.No.128, Finance (FR-I) Department, dtd. 1/6/2007. When there was no response from the petitioner, the respondent No.3 issued a Charge Memo No.05/Admn/DIO-Medak/2012-13, dtd. 11/2/2013, was issued for unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 22/12/2008 to 9/7/2012. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 16/2/2013 denying the charges and requesting to drop all further proceedings and also to pay the salary for the period for which he discharged his duties after joining the duty with effect from 10/7/2012. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 did not consider the same, but appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the charge of unauthorized absence to duty with effect from 22/12/2008 to 9/7/2012 and the petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation along with the relevant documents i.e., including the relevant medical evidence for his unauthorized absence from 22/12/2008. It is claimed that the Enquiry Officer without conducting proper enquiry, submitted his report holding the charges against the petitioner as proved and upon receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice proposing the punishment of removal from service and required the petitioner to submit his explanation against the said proposed major punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation and requested the respondent No.3 to take a lenient view and continue him as Office Subordinate. However, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3077 of 2014 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and no interim order was passed in the same. Subsequently, on abolition of the Tribunal, the case has been transferred to the High Court and re-numbered as W.P(Tr).No.2113 of 2017, i.e., the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 himself accepted the joining report of the petitioner and permitted him to join duty with effect from 10/7/2012 after availing of medical leave by the petitioner and therefore, he could not have initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence particularly when all the relevant substantiating documents to prove that due to health problems only the petitioner could not attend the office from 22/12/2008 have been furnished by the petitioner. It is submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is bad in law as no witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that though the petitioner has denied the charges, the Enquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner accepted his guilt and therefore, no further enquiry was necessary.